Anant Kumar Hegde fiasco a closed chapter, says Yeddyurappa

Mangaluru, Jul 7: The government of Kerala has barred movement of daily pass holders — professionals and workers — between Kasaragod district and Karnataka’s Dakshina Kannada district following a spurt in COVID-19 cases.

Kerala Revenue Minister E. Chandrasekaran announced the decision at a meeting on Monday in Kasaragod. Both district administrations had in June issued passes to daily travellers in their districts to travel in connection with their work.

Those from Dakshina Kannada intending to work in Kasaragod have to remain in Kasaragod for 28 days if they wish to continue and those from Kasaragod would have to remain in Dakshina Kannada for 28 days if they wish to continue their work, the Minister said.

Thousands from Kasaragod travel daily to Mangaluru and surrounding areas in connection with their work. Their travel past Talapady check post on NH 66 was facilitated by daily e-passes.

Similarly, many from Dakshina Kannada, particularly doctors and healthcare workers, travel daily to Kasaragod with daily e-passes issued by the Kasaragod administration.

Bengaluru, Apr 16: The lockdown in the wake ofthe coronavirus pandemic has turned out to be a deeply painful story for the Kannada film industry.

Schedules have gone awry following the stay-at-home curbs and operators in Sandalwood, as the industry is popularly known as, say about 100 films under production are affected.

They include big budget movies- 'Raja Veera Madakari Nayaka', 'Kotigobba 3', 'Robert' and 'Yuvaratna.'

Noted producer Rockline Venkatesh told P T I that the loss to the industry is to the tune of hundreds of crores of rupees.

In addition, it's a challenge for producers to secure the content of their movies from "piracy and leak" during long periods of time before their release, Venkatesh, who is Secretary of Karnataka Cine Artistes' Association, said.

A leading distributor said even after the lockdown is lifted and situation returns to normalcy, it remains a big question if investment in film business will pay off at all.

"People don't have money. We will know the impact when things become normal. Questions many ask if people will return to cinema halls like the way they did before or they prefer to stay away from crowd."

Venkatesh, who had also produced Rajinikanth-starrer 'Lingaa' and co-produced 'Bajrangi Bhaijaan' with Salman Khan in the lead role, said it would take at least one to one-and- half years for the industry to be back on its legs.

"That too if the government does hand-holding but if the industry faces a bad hit in terms of income tax and GST and other taxation, 80-90 per cent of the industry will face closure," he said.

"It does not matter if the government does not help the industry but they should not trouble us with things like IT and GST," Venkatesh, who is also a distributor and artiste, said.

A top director said people's "behaviour" towards movies is crucial for the industry's health in the post lockdown scenario.

"With people likely to shy away from going to malls, cinema theatres because of large gatherings there, it's going to be a long road to recovery for us", an industry insider said.

Striking a philosophical tone, Venkatesh said all that people worry now is to save their life and keep good health, adding, amassing money and wealth is the last thing on their mind.

Producers Soorappa Babu and Umesh Banakar, who is also Vice-President of the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, told P T I that the industry has taken a huge hit.

Banakar said the loss to the industry due to the lockdown is at least Rs 1,000 crore.

"The coronavirus has affected the entire world. We don't know what to do; we just have to wait," Soorappa Babu, producer of Kiccha Sudeep-starrer 'Kotigobba 3', said.

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.