VBM repatriation flight from Dammam lands in Mangaluru

Bengaluru, Jun 20: A petition has been filed in Karnataka High Court to transfer Amulya Leona case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). She raised pro-Pakistan slogans at an anti-CAA rally on February 20 at Freedom Park.

The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Raghu, blamed the probe team for not filing chargesheet on time and suggested the state government to approach the higher court against bail granted to Amulya Leona.

On June 11, she was granted conditional bail by the Bengaluru civil court.

She was charged with sedition for her actions in the presence of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi.

The court granted bail after hearing the bail application. Amulya's advocate on behalf of the petitioner said, "the petitioner is just a 19-year-old lady and she is studying in a private college in the Bengaluru. She shouted 'Pakistan Zindabad' but she never mentioned Pakistan as her country."

Bengaluru, Feb 3: A wave of dissatisfaction has hit the six-month-old BJP government against the backdrop of chief minister B S Yediyurappa's announcement to induct 13 aspirants in the second cabinet expansion on February 6.

In the first cabinet expansion, the chief minister had inducted 17 ministers on August 20, 2019.

Among the 13, ten will be those defectors from Congress and the JD(S) who were disqualified earlier and won the assembly by-election in December last year.

The rest will be the 'native BJP leaders', as deputy chief minister Govind Karjol put it.

Speculations are rife that Mahadevapura MLA Arvind Limbavali, Hukkeri MLA Umesh Katti and C P Yogeshwar, who had lost to H D Kumaraswamy from Channapatna assembly segment,would be inducted.

If Yogeshwar is included in the cabinet then he will bethe second minister after Deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi who had lost and yet made it to the cabinet.

The possible induction of Yogeshwar and Savadi, who was made deputy chief minister despite losing the assembly elections, are also a "reason" for discontent in the BJP.

Hectic activities began in the power corridor and MLAs started forming groups to impress upon the chief minister to include their members in the ministry.

While one group was from the "Kalyana Karnataka" region, the others were the defectors who will be excluded in the cabinet expansion.

A few MLAS from 'Kalyana Karnataka' region or erstwhile Hyderabad-Karnataka region comprising six districts, met at the Legislature Home and held a meeting.

The meeting was led by Shorapur MLA Narasimha Nayak akaRaju Gouda and Honnalli MLA M P Renukacharya.
The MLAs of the Kalyana Karnataka region were unanimous that their backward region should get representation in the cabinet.

Later, Gouda met the Chief Minister and requested that their region be given adequate representation in the cabinet, which is lacking development.

Talking to reporters, Gouda said, "We had given representations to all the MPs, MLAs and the chief minister. Today also we all had a meeting and later called on the Chief Minister requesting him to make any MLA from our region a minister."

He said any imbalance in cabinet expansion will cause trouble to the MLAs from Kalyana Karnataka region.

"If you make the defeated candidates ministers then include 120 people in the cabinet," an aggrieved Gouda taunted.

Renukacharya too echoed the same sentiments.

"If you give preference to the defeated candidates then what will happen to those who won the election? Where should the winners of election go? We emphasise upon giving preference to the winners."

On the other hand, the defectors who jumped the Congress and the JD(S) ship and helped form the BJP government too had a meeting in Bengaluru, said BJP sources.

They were unanimous that not only the 11 MLAs who won theelection be made ministers but also A H Vishwanath and M T BNagaraj who had unsuccessfully contested the assembly by- polls from Hunasuru and Hoskote on a BJP ticket.

Vishwanath, who was quite vocal on Sunday for dropping his name, was mellowed down on Monday after meeting Yediyurappa.

However, his insistence for getting a cabinet berth remained intact.

"I did not make any proposal before him and will not do it in future because he (Yediyurappa) knows what has to be done,"Vishwanath told reporters after meeting the chief minister.

When he was reminded of Yediyurappa's statement that therewere legal complications in making him a minister, Vishwanath said, "This government has legal experts and the advocate general. They will speak."

Amid speculations that Athani MLA Mahesh Kumathalli may not get a cabinet berth in the reshuffle, the defected MLAs led by Gokak BJP MLA Ramesh Jarkiholi, had a meeting to decide their future strategy, said party sources.

Currently, there are 18 ministers, including the chief minister, in the cabinet, which has a sanctioned strength of 34. Sixteen berths are vacant.

The cabinet expansion exercise will be a delicate task for Yediyurappa as he has to ensure adequate representation for various castes and regions.

The ministry already has eight Lingayats, including Yediyurappa; three Vokkaligas; a Brahmin; three SCs, two OBCs and one ST.

Opposition parties have been critical of the BJP and Yediyurappa over the delay in the cabinet expansion, alleging he is weak and his administration has collapsed.

Reacting to the cabinet expansion, former chief minister Siddaramaiah quipped, "A drama is taking place. Let it happen on February 6. Afterwards we will see what all happens."

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.