UAE based NRI donates Rs 15 lakh for newborn tiger cubs in Mangaluru

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.

Hubbali, Mar 21: South Western Railway suspended an employee on Thursday, for allegedly hiding her son's travel history who returned from Spain. The employee's son has now been kept under isolation.

Earlier it was reported that the man had a travel history of Italy- among the worst affected countries by Coronavirus.

He was working in Germany and had taken a flight from Spain to return to India.

In an order issued by General Manager of South Western Railway, the employee was further asked to leave the headquarter without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

The suspended Railway Officer is posted in Bengaluru.
According to the official data, the total number of Covid-19 cases in India has risen to 206, according to ICMR. Timely diagnosis and isolation have been considered vital to check the spread of the deadly disease.

Bengaluru, Apr 18: Hours after announcing that two-wheelers will be allowed to ply and that IT/BT companies can resume operations with 33 per cent strength, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Saturday took a u-turn and rolled them back, citing “public opinion” as the reason. 

Earlier in the day, Yediyurappa announced that, after April 20, there will not be any restriction on the movement of two-wheelers in areas that are not COVID-19 containment zones. Yediyurappa also said that a third of IT/BT employees will be allowed to go to the office after April 20. 

“In the backdrop of public opinion and after discussions with senior officials, it has been decided that the prohibition on two-wheelers will continue throughout the lockdown period,” a statement from the Chief Minister’s Office said. “And in the IT/BT sector, only essential services will be allowed and the work-from-home policy will continue.” 

According to sources, the u-turn came following opposition from Yediyurappa’s Cabinet colleagues. “If I was in the meeting, I’d not have allowed it,” a minister said. Only Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai and Revenue Minister R Ashoka were in the meeting Yediyurappa held earlier in the day. The Opposition also stemmed from the fact that there was no need to make decisions on the lockdown when the Cabinet was scheduled to meet on April 20, sources said. 

The incoordination was apparent on Friday when Deputy Chief Minister CN Ashwath Narayan, the IT/BT minister, said 50 per cent of employees in the sector will be permitted to work while Yediyurappa said this would depend on the number of cases reported in the coming days. 

Other announcements made by Yediyurappa remain unchanged.

“Places, where COVID-19 cases are reported, will be identified as containment zones. In such containment zones, an incident commander will be appointed and given magisterial power. Teams comprising the police and health department officials will oversee the lockdown,” Yediyurappa said. “Lockdown will be much more stringent in these areas and no one will be allowed to step out. Essential supplies will be delivered home.”

According to Bommai, there were 32 containment zones in Bengaluru and ‘hotspots’ have been identified in eight districts.

With an eye on restarting economic activities, the government will allow construction work and industries. “In urban areas, construction work will be allowed to start wherever construction workers have the facility to stay on site,” Yediyurappa said. “The manufacturing sector in rural areas and industrial units located in the special economic zones (SEZ) and townships in urban areas will be allowed to function,” he said.

Stating that inter-state travel will be prohibited, Yediyurappa said the districts of Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Ramnagara will be considered as one only for the movement of industrial workers.

Asked about liquor sale, Yediyurappa said a decision will be taken after May 3. The government has already prohibited liquor sale till April 20 midnight.