Suspension bridge linking Mangaluru to Bantwal taluk over Phalguni opened

Bengaluru, May 14: As many as 22 new cases have been reported in Karnataka taking the total number of positive cases in the state to 981. 

The new cases include five in Bengaluru Urban - all with a contact history, four each in Gadag - with history of travel to Ahemadabad, Mandya with travel history to Mumbai, Maharashtra and Bidar - with three from containment zone and one with travel history to Mumbai, three from Davangere and one each from Belagavi and Bagalkote.

Meanwhile, two more deaths have been reported in the state on Thursday morning taking the total toll to 35. This is apart from a non-COVID-19 death.

An 80-year-old resident of Dakshina Kannada, got admitted at private hospital following a stroke. She was shifted to the icu on confirmation for Covid-19 at a designated hospital on April 26. She died on Thursday due to septic shock.

Another 60-year-old male, resident of Ananthapur in Andhra Pradesh, admitted at Victoria Hospital in Bengaluru with severe pneumonia and respiratory distress died due to cardiac arrest on Thursday morning. He had hypotension and Diabetes Mellitus, according to the morning health bulletin.

Sources in Victoria Hospital said this person was the first patient to undergo clinical trial for plasma therapy. He was infused plasma on Monday. However, his condition continued to remain the same.

Bengaluru, May 5: After Congress delegation was denied to donate a cheque of Rs one crore to ensure free transportation to migrants, Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president DK Shivakumar said that Congress party can go anywhere and help anyone they want and BJP leaders must understand what constitutional rights are.

Earlier on Monday, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister who holds the transport portfolio, Lakshman Savadi suggested the Congress delegation for donating at least Rs 150 crore to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund instead of handing over a cheque of Rs one crore as a donation in order to bear the transportation fare of the migrants.

While reacting to Deputy CM and other BJP leaders' comments, Shivakumar said, "BJP leaders must understand what constitutional rights are. Who are these BJP leaders? They are now entering to help migrant workers after RSS guidelines. They must understand that we are a party and we can go anywhere and help anyone we want."

Congress leaders on Monday met Savadi to handover a cheque of Rs one crore in order to donate money for the migrant workers' transportation.

However, Savadi did not accept the cheque and suggested the Congress delegation to donate a bigger amount to the CM Relief Fund.

While addressing media after meeting the Congress leaders' delegation in the leadership of KPCC president, DK Shivakumar, Savadi said: "Congress has a history and its a wealthy party, still if Congress leaders want to donate, at least they must donate Rs 150 crores to the CM relief fund to fight COVID-19."

DK Shivakumar yesterday slammed the government and urged to depute free transport services to migrant workers, he asserted that Congress will donate money in this regard.

But the Managing Director of KSRTC denied to accept the cheque of Rs one crore and suggested the Congress delegation to meet transport minister or Chief Minister and donate to CM relief funds. Hence, today congress leaders met deputy CM Lakshman Savadi and tried to handover Rs one crore cheque which he did not accept.

After Congress leaders slammed the government and people criticised the decision of collecting bus fares, CM BS Yediyurappa ordered for free transport service to migrant workers.

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.