Siddu writes to Sonia, Rahul defending his move to form separate ACB

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, Mar 2: Karnataka Minister BC Patil on Monday repeated his earlier statements that he will approach the Centre to bring a law to "shoot at sight" anyone who raises anti-India slogans.

"I am not going back on my statement as I have not said anything wrong. I had said that I will ask the central government to bring a law to shoot at sight those who shout slogans against India. Nowadays it has become a fashion for some youths to get popularity this way which spoils the country and patriotism," Patil told reporters here.

"There is nothing wrong in asking for a law. I have not said that I will myself shoot someone who shouts slogans against India. If the same thing happens in Pakistan, they will be beheaded. But we are not so brutal, we book a case and send them to judicial custody," he added.

Patil also said that there was no need for holding discussions over the amended Citizenship Act, but added that the ruling BJP will defend it if the opposition raises a stir in the state Assembly.

The budget session of the Karnataka Assembly began on Monday.

Bengaluru, Mar 6: The Karnataka Congress on Thursday termed the budget for fiscal 2020-21 presented by the B.S. Yediyurappa government as the "weakest ever state budget".

"This is the weakest budget ever that our state has had. There is no clear cut provision in the budget for industrial growth or to generate jobs. No clarity on department wise allocation," tweeted Congress.

Congress leader Dinesh Gundu Rao said he did not expect such a bad budget which has discriminated on agriculture and education sectors.

"The state budget does not mention major irrigation projects like Kaveri valley and Krishna. No farmers loan waiver," noted Rao.

The opposition party has criticised the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that the potential of Karnataka was not realized to generate revenue through this budget.

Assailing the additional tax on petrol and diesel, Congress said the development will lead to price rise and is a huge disappointment.

"People are reeling under high inflation and reduction in income. BJP has rubbed salt into injury by further increasing prices and providing no relief to common man," said the party.

Bhalki MLA and Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee working president Eshwar Bhimanna Khandre pointed out that the Centre gave the state only Rs 1,869 crore, despite a loss of Rs 35,160 crore in 2019.

Calling stamp duty reduction for housing within Rs 20 lakhs as an insult to people, Congress questioned the Chief Minister and BJP to first show where in Bengaluru does one get housing within Rs 20 lakh.

"This is mockery of people. No mention or allotment to universal housing programme that Congress government had delivered," claimed Congress.

Focusing on Karnataka capital Bengaluru, Congress slammed the BJP saying no proper revenue policy has been mooted.

"Last mile connectivity issue not addressed. Drinking water issue is not mentioned. No mention of peripheral ring road. No mention of Akrama-Sakrama and no thought process has gone in while planning Bengaluru," tweeted the party.

The party said Yediyurappa has admitted that there is a financial crisis in his budget speech.

"He admits Rs 8,883 crore aid has been cut, around Rs 11,000 crore state share from Centre has been cut. No additional allocation for flood relief. What is stopping him and 25 members of Parliament to question the centre," observed Congress.

Former chief minister Siddaramaiah mocked Yediyurappa that though he calls himself a farmer''s son, he delivered an anti-farmer budget.

"No one will benefit from this budget. A complete failure to boost the economy, to realize inclusive development and to improve standard of living," he tweeted.