Suresh Neramballi - an unsung Mangalurean hero in Kuwait

Bengaluru, Apr 15: Bengaluru Commissioner of Police, Bhaskar Rao, said that prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, will remain in place for all parts of the City Commissionerate till April 20.

Section 144 of CrPC prohibits the assembly of four or more people in an area.

"Prohibitory order under section 144 of CrPC will remain in force, in all parts of the Bengaluru City Commissionerate for a period up to 12 am of April 20 with effect from 12 am of April 14," according to Rao.

Karnataka, so far, has 258 confirmed COVID-19 cases, with 9 deaths being reported due to the infection, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Tuesday.

Bengaluru, May 25: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Monday greeted the Muslim brethren on the occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr, which is being celebrated in a subdued manner due to coronavirus related restrictions.

"Warm greetings of Eid-ul-Fitr. May this festival of peace and harmony bring happiness in life," Yediyurappa said in his message.

He congratulated the Muslim fraternity for cooperating with the authorities by offering prayers at home during the holy month of Ramadan and supporting the government to contain COVID-19.

"I hope the same trend will continue during the festivities of Eid-ul-Fitr too. I thank you all for your support in the fight against COVID-19," he said.

The Eid festivities were a low-key affair as Muslim brethren celebrated the festival indoors in view of lockdown to contain coronavirus on Monday.

People offered the special prayers inside their houses instead of performing it in mosques and Eidgah, the open field to perform prayers, and refrained from going out to greet each other.

As the Karnataka government has ordered Sunday Curfew throughout the lockdown-4 till May 31, the otherwise bustling markets in the urban areas of Karnataka remained shut.

People could not venture out to make necessary purchases on Sunday.

The Jama Masjid of Bengaluru at the City Market had asked the Muslims to offer prayers inside their houses and not go to the burial grounds to express their sentiments for the departed souls.

"Mass prayers are not allowed anywhere in Karnataka. Just five important persons managing the mosques offered the prayers. Similarly, people go to the graveyard to pray for the dead ones but this time we asked people to express their sentiments from inside their homes instead of going to the burial grounds," Maulana Maqsood Imran, the Khateeb-O-Imam, Jama Masjid, Bengaluru, told news agency.

He said, "coronavirus is spreading very rapidly in our country. If we don't follow the guidelines, it will not only cause trouble to us but also to the doctors and the government. It will be the biggest celebration if we abide by the norms."

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.