Thank you NRIs! India retains top position in remittances with $80 billion

Bengaluru, Jun 29: The results of second pre-university and the Secondary School Leaving Certificate examination results will be out by July last week and August first week, Karnataka Primary and Secondary Education Minister S Suresh Kumar said on Monday.

Instead of giving general promotion to the 10th and 12th standard students as the Central Board of Secondary Education and other states have done, the Karnataka government decided to hold the examination defying the coronavirus scare.

"We are trying to get the SSLC results out by the first week of August.The PUC results will be out in the last week of July," the minister told reporters in Bengaluru.

Amid reports of schools increasing the school fees ignoring the government's direction, the minister said he has got reports that 1,150 schools have increased their fees of which action has been taken against 450 schools.

"We have directed all the schools not to increase the fees in view of the coronavirus scare.

It is a peculiar year.Humanity says no one should increase fees.

We have set up a helpline. If we come across such practices, we will initiate action," Kumar said.

He said an officer has been entrusted to look into the complaints against schools.

Speaking about online classes for kindergarten students, the minister said such classes are not allowed.

The schools can hold talks with parents twice a week about grooming their children.

Kumar said a decision on opening kindergarten schools will be taken after July 5.

He, however, conceded that most parents are unwilling to send their children to school.

The government is gathering the opinion of parents based on which a decision would be taken, he added.

Regarding education to students from Class one to Class 10, Kumar said the Centre has given guidelines, which will be followed.

The state has formed an expert committee to recommend guidelines on education to children from Class I to Class six.

"Once the committee report comes, we will formulate regulations," Kumar added.

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, Feb 5: ‘Forum for the justice of December 19 Mangaluru firing victims’ has demanded that the policemen who are responsible for the death of two innocent men in Mangaluru one-and-a-half months ago should be booked for homicide. 

49-year-old Abdul Jaleel Kandak, a father of two, and 23-year-old Nausheen Kudroli, were killed in an arbitrary and unwarranted police firing during a disturbance occurred due to police baton charge in the city on December 2019. 

Addressing a press conference, Forum’s convenor Abdul Jaleel Krishnapur said that a judicial inquiry commission should be set up to probe into the police firing which claimed two lives and injured many other innocent civilians.  

“Already a murder case should have been filed against the policemen who opened fire on the people.  Instead, false cases have been booked against many innocent people including the victims. This is a blot on the society,” he said. 

He urged the government to direct the police department to drop false charges registered against the victims and take necessary action against the culprits in khaki. 

He said that the Form demands Rs 25 lakh each compensation for the kin of the two men murdered by the police and Rs 15 lakh compensation for those who injured in police firing on December 19.