Real estate remains preferred asset class for investors amid covid, claims NAREDCO

Bengaluru, Jan 13: Though he submitted his resignation as leader of the opposition over a month ago, former chief minister Siddaramaiah continues as the face of the Congress in Karnataka.

However, this may change as All India Congress Committee (AICC) interim president Sonia Gandhi has summoned Siddaramaiah to Delhi for a final consultation over change of guard. Over the past month, there has been speculation over the possibility of Congress persisting with Siddaramaiah as opposition leader and either party troubleshooter DK Shivakumar or former ministers MB Patil, HK Patil or Eshwar Khandre replacing incumbent president Dinesh Gundu Rao. Both tendered resignations owing moral responsibility for the party's dismal performance in the 15 bypolls held last month.

In the past 24 hours, there has been talk of Siddaramaiah being asked to be the state unit president and vacating the other post for a young turk or experience legislator including the likes of Shivakumar who could be the face of KPCC by 2023 if he gets a clean chit from the ED in cases of money-laundering, etc. Seniors, including former KPCC president and DyCM G Parameswara and former minister HK Patil, are strong contenders to be leader of the opposition if Siddaramaiah is asked to vacate the post.

However, sources in the Siddaramaiah camp dismissed the possibility of him becoming KPCC president. "He has never aspired for the post and the high command is not inclined to do it," said a member in his camp.

Siddaramaiah may meet Sonia on Tuesday morning. It's still unclear if any other KPCC functionaries have been summoned. Sources said Sonia is scheduled to leave India for medical treatment on January 15 and wanted to complete the consultations about Karnataka. The high command has reportedly gone through reports submitted by party observers Madhusudan Mistry and Parameswara.

Chikkamagaluru, Feb 21: Alleged Bharatiya Janata Party supporters threw stones at Amulya Leona’s father’s house at Gullagadde near Koppa on Thursday night, after she was charged for making objectionable remarks at a public programme in Bengaluru.

Amulya Leona’s father Wazi said that the incident, which left window panes and doors damaged, took place at around 7.30 p.m. “They are all BJP supporters. They were in a group. I have complained to the police with the names of a few who led the group,” he said.

Three policemen have been deployed at his house since Thursday night.

Amulya Leona, a B.A. student, was charged with sedition after she raised pro-Pakistan slogans at a protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Bengaluru.

Mr. Wazi, who owns a two-acre areca plantation and runs a poultry farm, said he condemned the statement made by his daughter and he would not make any attempts to get her bail. “Let the law take its course. I cannot approve of her statement,” he said.

He said he had cautioned his daughter against getting involved in protests. “I told her to complete studies first and later she could fight for poor people. But what she said yesterday is not acceptable. I don’t know what made her so. I hope a probe would bring out who prompted her to make such statements,” he said.

Mr. Wazi said he has been politically active for several years, and had earlier worked for former education minister H.G. Govinde Gowda. He then shifted to the BJP and worked in support of D.N. Jeevaraj, who represented Sringeri constituency last time, and current Udupi-Chickmagaluru MP Shobha Karandlaje. “I have worked for the BJP in the past. As Govinde Gowda’s son contested on JD(S) ticket for Sringeri seat, I supported him”, he said.

Meanwhile, a video clip that went viral on Thursday night showed a group of Bajrang Dal activists compelling Mr. Wazi to shout ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’. “I have no hesitation in raising ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ slogans,” said Mr. Wazi, adding that his statement was taken forcibly. “I am a patriot. Many writers, activists and politicians have come to my place over the years,” he said.

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.