Bengaluru: Newly married couple picked up by NIA on terror suspicion

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, June 13: Commending the Karnataka government move to ban the online classes for children up to Standard 5, Mangaluru MLA U T Khader has demanded to impose ban on all education apps that offer online coaching to school children.

"I welcome the government’s decision of banning online classes up to class 5. I would like to know why education apps of corporate companies are allowed to continue when schools are banned to conduct online classes. Why the government could not ban those education apps that offer online classes?” the former minister questioned.

He warned that private schools in the state may commence their online classes through such apps of corporate companies if the present situation continues.

Not all parents in the state can afford buying smart phones required for online classes, he said. "Only 30% of the school children in the state have access to smart phones. Most of the parents cannot afford to buy smart phones for their children. Government should take into consideration the mental stress of academically brilliant children among poor families. Those children may go under depression when they do not have access to online classes. The government can cancel some of the schemes like distribution of bicycles and reserve such funds to find solutions to the problems poor children face at present,” Khader said.

Bengaluru, Jul 14: The Karnataka government on Tuesday made changes to the Land Reforms Act 1961 through an ordinance to allow non-agriculturists to buy and own farmland for farming.

“The Land Reforms Act has been amended through an ordinance and notified after Governor Vajubhai R Vala gave his assent to it on Monday night,” a Revenue Department official told media persons.

It now permits non-farmers to buy farmland and grow food crops. But they can’t use it for other activities.

“Sections 79 A, B and C of the Act have been repealed, paving way for bona fide citizens to invest in farmland and take to farming as a hobby, passion or additional occupation, which is rewarding,” the official said.

The amended Act will enable the state to attract investment in the farm sector and boost food output. The farm sector’s contribution to the state’s gross domestic product (GDP) has been less than the manufacturing and services sectors over the last two decades.

Criticism by farmers, the Congress and the JD(S) since the cabinet approved changes on June 11 forced the state government to retain section 80 of the Act, with an amendment, to prevent sale of dam water irrigated farmland.

“The ordinance has also added a new section (80A), which says relaxations under the Act will not apply to land given to farmers under the Karnataka SC and ST (Scheduled Caste and Tribe) Act 1978,” the official said.

The changes permit mortgage of farmland only to the state-run institutions, firms and cooperative societies specified in the Act. The ordinance also makes legal cases pending in courts against the sections amended redundant as the new Act addresses the concerns raised in them.

“Besides generating substantial revenue for the state government, the Act will now allow farmers who find the occupation non-remunerative and risky due to droughts/floods and labour shortage to sell their surplus land to urban buyers,” the official said.

Ruling BJP Rajya Sabha member KC Ramamurthy from Bengaluru said the amended Act would allow any citizen to buy farmland.

“Though hundreds of people petitioned successive governments for the past 45 years to abolish the ‘draconian’ sections, they were ignored. I compliment Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and Revenue Minister R Ashoka for the decision to allow everyone to buy farmland irrespective of their occupation or profession,” Ramamurthy told media persons.