Bhatkal engineering student among two killed in car-truck collision

Bengaluru, Jun 6: Karnataka registered 378 Covid-19 cases in the past 24 hours, breaching the 5,000-mark to settle at 5,213, said an official, here on Saturday. "New cases reported from Friday 5 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. is 378," said a health official.

Of the new cases, 333 are local returnees, comprising 88 per cent of the new infections. Returnees from Maharashtra accounted for 99 per cent new cases at 329.

Majority infections in Karnataka nowadays are returnees, mostly from the state''s northern neighbour. Only 27 new infections were contacts of earlier cases.

On Saturday, cases spiked in Udupi, Kalaburagi, Yadgir, Bengaluru Urban, Belagavi, Vijayapura, Davangere and Dakshina Kannada.

Udupi witnessed the highest number of cases (121), followed by Yadgir (103), Kalaburagi (69), Dakshina Kannada (24), Bengaluru Urban (18), Vijayapura and Davangere (6 each), Belagavi (5), Gadag (4), Mandya, Hassan, Dharwad and Haveri (3 each), Raichur, Chikkaballapura and Uttara Kannada (2 each) and Bidar, Tumkur, Kolar and Koppal (1 each).

Among the new cases, three patients from Bengaluru Urban are suffering from Influenza Like Illness (ILI) and another from Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI).

There were seven cases with international travel history to United Arab Emirates (UAE) and one to Turkey.

Meanwhile, 280 people were discharged in the past 24 hours and two persons succumbed to the virus, one from Bidar and another from Vijayapura. Of all the cases, 3,184 are active, 1,968 discharged, 59 dead and 11 in the ICU.

In the past 24 hours, Karnataka tested 11,862 people, of which 11,431 reports returned negative. In total, 3.72 lakh samples have been tested so far, of which 3.61 lakh have returned negative.

Currently, Udupi is leading the state''s Covid-19 burden with 785 active cases, followed by Kalaburagi (448), Yadgir (407), Raichur (320) and Mandya (163) among others.

Bengaluru Urban has accounted for 13 deaths, followed by Kalaburagi (7), Bidar, Vijayapura, Davangere and Dakshina Kannada (6 each) and Chikkaballapura (3 each), among others.

Remember social media memes of Chinese companies exporting #BoycottChina hats and t-shirts to India? This time India’s sensational and saffronite TV anchor Arnab Goswami vindicated those memes by hosting an anti-China debate show which was sponsored by Chinese companies!

While the last night's debate was all about boycotting Chinese products in the wake of massacre of over 20 Indian soldiers by their Chinese counterparts in eastern Ladakh, the show was brazenly promoting Chinese products through advertisement placements. 

During the debate, amongst the flashy headlines, there were two brand sponsorships that appeared: VIVO and Xiaomi. Both companies are giant Chinese multinational corporations. 

Twitter user Nirmala Tai, who was among those who spotted this irony, highlighted two instances during the debate where the logo of one of the brands popped up, and one where Xiaomi was found promoting the Mi 10. 

Many Twitterati used Goswami’s some of the favourite words such as ‘hypocrite’ and ‘anti-national’ to target him. They hit out at his channel for accepting sponsorship deals from Chinese brands at a time when anti-China sentiment is strong in the country.

Boycott China powered by Mi10 and Vivo. pic.twitter.com/TAb6Fn1tWx

— Nirmala Tai (@vishj05) June 17, 2020

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.