BSY dares Cong to face bypolls on Dec 5

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.

Udupi, Jan 19: Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitaraman has said the mutt tradition in Udupi is a unique tradition and a perfect example of the country’s rich heritage of spirituality.

Speaking at the Darbar organised for the incoming Paryaya Admar Mutt seer Sri Eeshapriya Theertha Swamiji at Rajangana, here Saturday night, she said, “Paryaya festival is not just an event. It represents the presence of the Lord. I am conscious about the history. I am immensely blessed to be associated with the Krishna Mutt in one or the other.”

She turned nostalgic and traced her connection with the Krishna mutt which started in her childhood. “I am attached to the Mutt and temple due to my maternal uncle. My uncle was a bank employee and he spent his career in Manipal. I am being drawn to the mutt for the past 25 years. I am blessed immensely by the seers of the mutt and Lord Krishna.”

Bengaluru, Jul 18: Bringing a major change in the  administration of Bengaluru, which has emerged as a Covid-19 hotspot, the state government on Saturday transferred B H Anil Kumar out of the BBMP and brought N Manjunath Prasad to take his place. 

Manjunath Prasad, who headed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) before being replaced by Kumar, will take over with immediate effect. The government has also placed him in concurrent charge of the Revenue Department as well as the Disaster Management, Bhoomi and UPOR.

Kumar, an Additional Chief Secretary, has been put in a place where earlier a secretary was posted. He now heads the Department of Public Enterprises. The posting would have brought him two spots down had it not been for the government upgrading it to the level of additional chief secretary. 

Anil Kumar, who was earlier praised for his work to contain the coronavirus pandemic, had faced criticism by the High Court of Karnataka for the BBMP's failure to help people in containment zones as well as other issues on the spread of the pandemic. 

Sources in the government said, pressure has been building up against Anil Kumar over the last two months after most of the Bengaluru MLAs complained to the chief minister's office.

"No MLA backed him. Everyone had a problem," a source said. 

Things came to the head with regard to a Rs 436 crore project given to KRIDL. "The issue reached the chief minister's office as all the MLAs took an issue with the way the project was awarded," a source said. 

Another source said that Kumar came under fire after a central team flagged the issue of failing Covid-19 surveillance measures in Bengaluru. The central team's criticism, it is widely believed in the government, came as the last straw.