3-month-old baby choked to death while being fed Cerelac

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.

Bengaluru, May 23: The Karnataka government on Friday said returnees from six states with high COVID-19 cases will be kept in institutional quarantine for seven days.

The states are - Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

As per the standard operating procedure released by the government, all people to arrive via rain, air road are expected to quarantine.

After they test negative for the disease in pool testing, they will be sent for home quarantine for another seven days, the government said.

Returnees from other low prevalence states will be asked to follow 14 days of home quarantine, according to the standard operating procedure (SOP) for entry of persons from other states to Karnataka issued by the state health department late on Friday night.

However home quarantine is allowed for pregnant ladies, people above 80 years, patients with comorbidities and children below 10 years of age, along with one attendant after they test negative.

In special cases like businessmen coming for urgent work, the quarantine period will be waived if they furnish a report from an ICMR-approved laboratory showing they tested negative for COVID-19, it said.

However, if they don't have reports, they will have to stay in institutional quarantine and can leave once their results test negative.

In case their stay exceeds 5 days, they will be sent to the fever clinic and get a five-day extension if found asymptomatic.

The report should not be more than two days old from the date of travel.

All Karnataka returnees who entered from 4 May will be tested from 5-7 days from the time of their arrival.

If found COVID-19 negative, they will be sent to home quarantine and will have to follow due precautions, the SOP stated.

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."