Police interrogating NaMo Naresh in undisclosed location?

New Delhi, Mar 3: Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kapil Mishra, who instigated violence in northeast Delhi by provoking mobs, has now been provided with 24x7 security. After he claimed threat to his life, he has been provided with “Y” category security — which entitles him to six security personnel round-the-clock to guard him in and outside the city.

He had fought the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections by giving inflammatory remarks around the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act in Shaheen Bagh, and lost to Aam Aadmi Party candidate. But he continued to issue provocative remarks.

While there is clear evidence of his scandalous statements just a day before the violence was unleashed on Muslims in Delhi last week where around 50 people were killed, no action has been taken against him so far. Instead, he is being treated as a hero in his party.

As per sources, Mishra complained that he got life threats over the past week in wake of the violence and based on his request, the Delhi Police has provided the security cover.

Mishra had taken to social media platform Twitter and alleged that he was receiving threats via WhatsApp, Twitter and Facebook, from Indian and foreign accounts.

“I am constantly being threatened with murder on the phone, on WhatsApp, on email. Hundreds of threats are being given continuously from the country and abroad. I don’t fear this hate campaign against me,” he had said on Twitter on March 1.

Mishra had on February 23 made an incendiary speech, following which North-East Delhi witnessed anti-Muslim violence.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday said it will on Wednesday (March 4) hear a plea that sought immediate FIRs against Kapil Mishra, Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and other leaders for their recent hate speech, which allegedly triggered the violence in Delhi. The plea was filed by Delhi violence survivors.

The apex court bench, comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, listed the matter for hearing after senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who is appearing on behalf of the survivors told the SC that the Delhi High Court had last week adjourned the matter for six weeks even as “people are dying every day”.

In the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) UN High Commissioner, Michele Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, as she is critical of CAA. Responding to her, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jai Shanker strongly rebutted her criticism, saying that the body (UNHCR) has been wrong and is blind to the problem of cross border terrorism. The issue on hand is the possibility of scores of people, mainly Muslims, being declared as stateless. The problem at hand is the massive exercise of going through the responses/documents from over 120 crore of Indian population and screening documents, which as seen in Assam, yield result which are far from truthful or necessary.

The issue of CAA has been extensively debated and despite heavy critique of the same by large number of groups and despite the biggest mass opposition ever to any move in Independent India, the Government is determined on going ahead with an exercise which is reminiscent of the dreaded regimes which are sectarian and heartless to its citizens, which have indulged in extinction of large mass of people on grounds of citizenship, race etc. The Foreign minister’s assertion is that it is a matter internal to India, where India’s sovereignty is all that matters! As far as sovereignty is concerned we should be clear that in current times any sovereign power has to consider the need to uphold the citizenship as per the principle of non-discrimination which is stipulated in Art.26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights.

Can such policies, which affect large number of people and are likely to affect their citizenship be purely regarded as ‘internal’? With the World turning into a global village, some global norms have been formulated during last few decades. The norms relate to Human rights and migrations have been codified. India is also signatory to many such covenants in including ICCPR, which deals with the norms for dealing with refugees from other countries. One is not talking of Chicago speech of Swami Vivekanand, which said that India’s greatness has been in giving shelter to people from different parts of the World; one is also not talking of the Tattariaya Upanishad’s ‘Atithi Devovhav’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam’ from Mahaupanishad today.

What are being talked about are the values and opinions of organizations which want to ensure to preserve of Human rights of all people Worldwide. In this matter India is calling United Nations body as ‘foreign party’; having no locus standi in the case as it pertains to India’s sovereignty. The truth is that since various countries are signatories to UN covenants, UN bodies have been monitoring the moves of different states and intervening at legal level as Amicus (Friend of the Court) to the courts in different countries and different global bodies. Just to mention some of these, UN and High Commissioner for Human Rights has often submitted amicus briefs in different judicial platforms. Some examples are their intervention in US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These are meant to help the Courts in areas where UN bodies have expertise.

 Expertise on this has been jointly formulated by various nations. These interventions also remind the nations as to what global norms have been evolved and what are the obligations of individual states to the values which have evolved over a period of time. Arvind Narrain draws our attention to the fact that, “commission has intervened in the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Spain and Italy to underscore the principle of non-refoulement, which bars compulsory expulsion of illegal migrants… Similarly, the UN has intervened in the International Criminal Court in a case against the Central African Republic to explicate on the international jurisprudence on rape as a war crime.”

From time to time organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been monitoring the status of Human rights of different countries. This puts those countries in uncomfortable situation and is not welcome by those establishments. How should this contradiction between ‘internal matter’, ‘sovereignty’ and the norms for Human rights be resolved? This is a tough question at the time when the freedom indices and democratic ethos are sliding downwards all over the world. In India too has slid down on the scale of these norms.

In India we can look at the intervention of UN body from the angle of equality and non discrimination. Democratic spirit should encourage us to have a rethink on the matters which have been decided by the state. In the face of the greatest mass movement of Shaheen bagh, the state does need to look inwards and give a thought to international morality, the spirit of global family to state the least.

The popular perception is that when Christians were being persecuted in Kandhmal the global Christian community’s voice was not strong enough. Currently in the face of Delhi carnage many a Muslim majority countries have spoken. While Mr. Modi claims that his good relations with Muslim countries are a matter of heartburn to the parties like Congress, he needs to relook at his self gloating. Currently Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and many Muslim majority countries have spoken against what Modi regime is unleashing in India. Bangladesh, our neighbor, has also seen various protests against the plight of Muslims in India. More than the ‘internal matter’ etc. what needs to be thought out is the moral aspect of the whole issue. We pride ourselves in treading the path of morality. What does that say in present context when while large section of local media is servile to the state, section of global media has strongly brought forward what is happening to minorities in India.   

The hope is that Indian Government wakes up to its International obligations, to the worsening of India’s image in the World due to CAA and the horrific violence witnessed in Delhi.

Bengaluru, May 21: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa today slammed Law Minister JC Madhuswamy for yelling at a woman farmer in Kolar, an incident that attracted widespread criticism. 

The incident happened on Wednesday when Madhuswamy, who is also the minor irrigation minister, was inspecting the Koramangala-Challaghatta (KC) Valley project, under which Bengaluru’s sewage is treated and pumped into lakes in Kolar. 

During his visit, farmer Nalini Gowda questioned Madhuswamy on the encroachment of the 1,022-acre S Agrahara lake. At one point, Madhuswamy lost his cool and yelled, “Aye! Shut your mouth, rascal,” and asked the police to take her away. Before this, Madhuswamy told her, “Make a request. I’m a very bad man. You can only air your grievance. Don’t command us.” 

A video of this exchange was aired by news channels. 

“What (Madhuswamy) said is not right. I have warned him. None can forgive such an explicit manner of talking with a woman. That, too, behaving like that being a minister doesn’t bode well. I will talk to that woman also and I’ll ensure this doesn’t happen again,” Yediyurappa told reporters.

The incident has come as a shot in the arm to the Opposition Congress, which is already attacking the Yediyurappa administration on the COVID-19 crisis. Condemning Madhuswamy’s behaviour, Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah demanded an apology and asked Yediyurappa to sack him from the Cabinet. 

Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president D K Shivakumar said it was unbecoming of Madhuswamy to behave like that being a senior minister. “People will ask us questions and express their problems, naturally. What’s important is how we handle ourselves. Be it a woman or anyone, they come to us because we’re into public service. Calling them ‘rascal’ and things is not right. Maybe there was some irritation, but I agree with (Siddaramaiah) that he should be dropped from the Cabinet,” he said.

On his part, Madhuswamy said he felt intimidated. “If I have hurt the feelings of any woman, I will certainly apologise,” he said. “But citizens should realise, we go to their villages to ask about their problems. If they start abusing us publicly, how can we work? My secretary and I heard her for five minutes and then told her that we know our responsibility. We asked her to close the issue. She didn’t stop and I got tempted (sic),” the minister said.