SSLC toppers in DK, Udupi aim high

Bengaluru, Mar 6: PVR Cinemas on Friday launched its five-screen multiplex in here, augmenting its presence in Karnataka across 15 properties to 103 screens and to 46 properties and 286 screens in southern India.

With this opening, PVR consolidates its growth momentum in the current financial year 2019-20, so far opening 83 screens in the year and bringing its portfolio to 841 screens at 176 properties in 71 cities.

"We feel proud to cross the 100 screens milestone in the state of Karnataka at the very beginning of the year," said Joint Managing Director Sanjeev Kumar Bijli.

"Southern India has a strong market with significant growth potential. In Bengaluru, we have introduced some of our best formats and offerings owing to the nature of preferences by our customers," he said in a statement.

Pramod Arora, Chief Growth and Strategy Officer at PVR Ltd, said the company will continue to enhance the consumer experience through innovation and set new benchmarks in the Indian multiplex industry.

PVR is the largest and the most premium film exhibition company in India, serving over 100 million patrons annually. 

Bengaluru, Jul 10: Former Karnataka Chief Minister and Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Thursday condemned the decision of the HRD Ministry to drop chapters on citizenship, secularism and federalism from Class 11 political science syllabus, stating that this will "deprive a generation of students from understanding the important pillars of Indian democracy".

"I strongly condemn the decision of @HRDMinistry to drop chapters on citizenship, secularism and federalism. This will deprive a generation of students from understanding the important pillars of Indian democracy. #Stop Saffronisation Of Education," Siddaramaiah tweeted.

The Congress leader further alleged that BJP does not believe in the principles of citizenship, secularism and federalism.

"Chapters on citizenship, secularism and federalism are dropped from Class 11 Pol Science. syllabus. Does this explain something? Yes, it explains that @BJP4India doesn't believe in these principles and validates its past behaviour," he said in another tweet.

Earlier in the day, Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank rejected criticism over alleged conspiracy in CBSE's decision to reduce the syllabus of schools due to COVID-19 outbreak and urged the critics to "leave politics out of education".

"There has been a lot of uninformed commentary on the exclusion of some topics from #CBSESyllabus. The problem with these comments is that they resort to sensationalism by connecting topics selectively to portray a false narrative," the Union Minister tweeted.

"It is our humble request:#Education is our sacred duty towards our children. Let us leave politics out of education and make our politics more educated," he added.

The CBSE has revised the syllabus for the classes IX to XII during the academic session 2020-21 in the wake of the situation created by COVID-19.

In a circular issued to all the heads of the institutions affiliated to it, the CBSE had said that the revision of syllabi has been done due to the extraordinary situation prevailing in the country and different parts of the world.

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.