Sri Ram Sena leader thrown out of coastal district for three months

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.

Mangaluru, June 28: In his apparent bid to win the hearts of the people of Tulu Nadu while leaving this coastal city, Dr P S Harsha, the outgoing Mangaluru city police commissioner, today took to social media and thanked the people. The language he chose for his prolonged Facebook post and one paragraph tweet was Tulu.

“Loveable people of Kudla! I have received the transfer order after serving as the Commissioner of Police of Mangaluru City for 11 months. (During this period) I worked with utmost honesty and pro-people approach with the complete cooperation of my department. I wholeheartedly thank all those who supported me,” tweeted Dr Harsha, who is now posted in Bengaluru as the Deputy Inspector General and Commissioner of Information and Public Relations.

In his Facebook post, Dr Harsha claimed that thanks to his initiative “My Beat My Pride”, the policing in the coastal city has strengthened. 

“My only intention was to put an end to rowdyism and illegal activities. I had given priority to curb the drug mafia. ‘My Beat My Pride’ became a successful initiative thanks to public support,” he said. 

The IPS officer went on to claim that with the with the co-operation of the senior officers, the police department managed to efficiently handle situations during anti-CAA and pro-CAA agitations in the city, detection of explosives at Mangaluru International Airport and also during the covid-19 pandemic. 

However, he did not mention about the death of two people in random police firing following a baton charge during anti-CAA protests in the city on December 19.

ಕುಡ್ಲದ ಮಾತ ಮೋಕೆದ ಬಂಧುಲೇ, 11 ತಿಂಗೊಳುರ್ದ್ ಕುಡ್ಲದ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಆಯುಕ್ತೆಯಾದ್ ಸೇವೆ ಮಂದಿನ ಎಂಕ್ ಇತ್ತೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಅವೋಂದುಂಡು.ಇಲಾಖೆದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಸಹಕಾರದೊಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಮಸ್ತ್ ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕ ಬೊಕ್ಕ ಜನಪರವಾದು ಎನ್ನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ಮಲ್ತೊಂದು ಬೈದೆ.ಎಂಕ್ ಸಹಕಾರ ಬೆಂಬಲ ಕೊರ್ನ ಮಾತೆರೆಗ್ಲಾ ಉಡಲ್ ದಿಂಜಿನ‌ ಸೊಲ್ಮೆಲು. pic.twitter.com/y7rgQMoOwm

— Harsha IPS CP Mangaluru City (@compolmlr) June 28, 2020

Bengaluru, Jan 24: After Honnalli legislator MP Renukacharya, Ballari City MLA Somashekara Reddy and deputy chief minister Govind Karjol, it appeared the turn of revenue minister R Ashoka to show the BJP in poor light with controversial and provocative comments against a minority community. This, despite a gag order issued by state BJP president Nalin Kumar Kateel.

Responding to questions on the Mangaluru International Airport bomb scare incident and how the main accused would have been treated had he been a Muslim, Ashoka on Thursday said "all anti-nationals must be shot dead". Meanwhile, Renukacharya, also a political secretary to chief minister BS Yediyurappa, continued his tirade against Muslims, insisting the government will not extend any "special package" to the community.

Soon after garlanding the statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on the birth anniversary of the freedom fighter, at Vidhana Soudha on Thursday, Ashoka said: "All those who are singing the tune of Pakistan and indulging in anti-national activities, be they Hindu, Christian or Muslim, must be shot dead."

Asked to respond to former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy’s accusation that the entire Mangaluru bomb incident was stage-managed by the BJP government to divert attention, Ashoka said the JD(S) functionary "must measure his words" and not speak "like a film director who can project the police as villainous all the time".

"Kumaraswamy is a former CM. When in power, police were his closest friends, but now that he is not in government, the same police are villains," Ashoka said.

The minister reiterated the government’s stand — first floated by home minister Basavaraj Bommai —

that Aditya Rao, the main accused in the Mangaluru bomb incident, is "mentally unstable" and needs to be medically examined.

Renukacharya, meanwhile, justified comments made on Wednesday that the government will not offer Muslims "a special package".

"When they [Muslims] need development funds, they come to us and seek special packages. Once they get funds, they then vote for Congress or JD(S) in elections," Renukacharya said on Thursday. "We do not need people with such double standards. I will apply pressure on all ministers in the cabinet and even the chief minister to ensure they do not allocate any special package for the community."