Prof. Dr M Abdul Rahiman conferred with ‘Best Educationist Award’

Bengaluru, Jul 26: Paying tributes to the martyrs of Kargil war on its 21st anniversary, Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Sunday said his government always stood by the soldiers and families of those who laid down their lives to protect the borders of the country.

"The government is always committed to the welfare of the soldiers. Karnataka has formed a separate department for the welfare of the soldiers and their families. We always stand with the families of the martyred soldiers," he said. He was addressing soldiers after paying tributes to the martyrs of the Kargil war at an official function organised on the occasion of Kargil Vijay Diwas at the National Military Memorial Park in the city by the Sainik Welfare and Resettlement Department under the state Home Department. 

Yediyurappa described as a symbol of India's valour and sacrifices the Kargil Vijay Diwas, observed to commemorate its victory over Pakistan in the war that ended on July 26, 1999 with recapture of the territory in Kargil. He said the state government has given due compensation to the families of the Kargil martyrs and the soldiers who were injured.

Recalling the conflict, Yediyurappa said Pakistan had set its eyes on grabbing the vast terrains of Kargil and Drass sector in Jammu and Kashmir but the Indian soldiers successfully fought a deadly battle at a height of 17,000 feet where the temperature goes up to minus 30 degrees celsius.

"The sacrifices of our soldiers will remain etched in our memories forever. The tale of the 527 soldiers, who sacrificed their lives to save our country, is a constant source of inspiration for our youth," the Chief Minister said. He also noted Karnataka's contributions to the Indian army and said the state had given two Generals, one Field Marshall, many army officers and innumerable soldiers to protect the country's borders. 

New Delhi, Mar 19: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the validity of Karnataka's 2018 reservation law, which granted reservation in promotion to employees belonging to SC and ST categories.

A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud holds that applications filed by a group of general category employees for applying 'post-based quota' and the principle of the creamy layer at entry-level in public employment are not maintainable.

The apex court had, in November last year, reserved its order on the applications filed by general category candidates in the matter.

In May last year, the top court had upheld the law allowing reservations in promotions for SC and ST candidates with consequential seniority.

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.