Tension at Mutt as seer's 'sleaze' video goes viral

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.

New Delhi, Jun 25: The Central government submitted before the Supreme Court on Thursday that the remaining class 10 and 12 CBSE exams, which were earlier rescheduled to be held between July 1 to July 15 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, have been cancelled.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), informed a three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar that the remaining class 10 and 12 CBSE exams scheduled to be held in July have been cancelled.

Delhi, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu have conveyed their inability to conduct the examinations, Mehta said.

The bench asked whether class 12 students were being given the option to either get marks on the internal assessment basis or appear for an exam later, to which the Mehta responded in the affirmative.

CBSE exams for class 10 students stand cancelled, Mehta said and added that they don't have to give any examinations. Mehta further submitted that as soon as conditions are conducive, CBSE exams for class 12 students, who opt for it, will be conducted.

The apex court was hearing a petition, filed by advocate Rishi Malhotra, seeking directions to cancel the remaining CBSE exams in view of the health risk of coronavirus infection. The apex court was also hearing a similar petition regarding the ICSE exams.

Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE), through its counsel Jaideep Gupta, also informed the court that it will also cancel the class 10 and 12 board exams. However, it submitted that it does not agree to give the option to students to give the exam later.

Bengaluru, Mar 15: The Karnataka government on Saturday said it would advice IT companies to allow employees to work from home as most coronavirus  affected patients or their relatives were from this sector.

"If anybody (IT companies) asks (employees to work in the office),I will speak to them through the deputy chief minister so that they take steps to issue a definite order. We have very clearly said, Stay Home, stay safe," medical education minister Dr K Sudhakar said. He recalled that the chief minister himself had issued a strict advisory to allow employees work from home.

The minister said the IT sector understands the gravity of the situation because they are educated, have travelled abroad and have more exposure to information world. "No action," he said to a question on what action would be taken against companies who do not follow the instructions.

"There is no action to be taken. We have not promulgated any law. It should be a kind of a cohesive approach from the government and the responsible citizen," he said.

The minister said he had also acted on the advice of Infosys Foundation chairperson Sudha Murty, who had told him that all areas where public and students gather, including malls, theatres, schools and colleges, should be closed.

Sudhakar claimed that the woman whose husband had tested positive for cornavirus here, had flown straight to Delhi from the city and had not come out of Bengaluru airport. He said the newly-wed couple came to Bengaluru airport on March 8 night and early on March 9, she flew alone to Delhi. From there she travelled to Agra by train. She did not come out of the airport, said the minister.

To a question on legal action being contemplated against her, the minister said he would take a call said he was not thinking of legal action at present and would take a call only after the woman, who has also tested positive for the virus, comes out of isolation. He insisted that the purpose of getting details was not to scare people.

On the preparedness in Kalaburagi, where the first Coronavirus death in India was reported, he said the administration had 'clamped down" the entire district. Meanwhile, the deputy commissioner of Ballari district ordered cancellation of tourists' entry to the world heritage site of Hampi from March 15 to 22 to prevent further spread of the virus.