Sushma Swaraj admitted to Delhi's AIIMS after chest pain

New Delhi, Apr 26: The Centre will bring back the Indian citizens stranded abroad due to the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft, only if the respective states they belong to agree to allow them to come back home and make necessary arrangements to quarantine them after their return.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has started consultations with the State Governments on bringing back the Indians, who got stranded in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada and many other foreign countries due to the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft to any airport in the country. The decision on facilitating their return to the country would be taken after getting feedback on preparedness of the States and the Union Territory to receive them following all required health precautions, Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba said.

Gauba on Saturday had a video-conference with the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to review the implementation of the restrictions on travel and transport as well as the lockdown imposed across the country to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Though the Government earlier either evacuated or facilitated the return of nearly 28000 Indians from a number of foreign countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, it almost stopped doing so after the ban on arrival of international passenger aircraft was enforced on March 23 in the wake of the spurt in the number of COVID-19 cases in India.

Thousands of Indian students, tourists, professionals and others are stranded around the world, including in the countries, where respective governments had imposed lockdowns to contain the pandemic. They have been desperately requesting the government on social media to evacuate them.

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, Mar 23: The magisterial enquiry into the police firing during the anti-CAA protest on December 19 in Mangaluru, has been postponed following the lockdown of Dakshina Kannada district, Udupi DC G Jagadeesh announced on Monday.

The inquiry by Udupi DC G Jagadeesh was scheduled on Monday. Already, City Police Commissioner Dr P S Harsha and others have deposed before the magistrate. The Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner were supposed to appear before the magistrate.

Following the December 19 violence and the death of  Nausheen and Jaleel due to alleged police firing, the state government had commissioned two probes-- one magisterial and the other, a CID inquiry.

 As per the government order, a report on the inquiry was to be submitted before March 23. On the request by the magistrate for more time since the documents and videos had to be examined, the government had asked him to submit the report by April 23.