Dubai: Muhammad Kunhi conferred HMC United International Peace Award

Mangaluru, May 6: The Kanara Chamber of Commerce and Industry has urged the government to consider erstwhile undivided Dakshina Kannada (now DK & Udupi) as one unit for the purpose of movement of people. KCCI president Isaac Vas has written a letter to Karnataka chief secretary T M Vijay Bhaskar in this regard. 

Mr Vas said: Even though the erstwhile Dakshina Kannada district was bifurcated in 1997 for administration purposes, the two districts are actually an urban agglomeration with most of the population residing in suburbs/towns. Office Staff, technical crew and labour of many industries reside in either district and commute daily for work within an efficient transport system.

The present restriction on Inter-district movement in view of the Lockdown is hindering the kick starting of industries and commerce. Workers are deprived of their livelihood and Industry and business owners are finding it challenging to move forward. To add to this, the migrant labour is moving back to their native places further aggravating the situation. Many Industries and Commercial establishments have requested us to take up this matter with the government, he said.

“Hence, we kindly request you to consider these two districts as one geographical area for the movement of people and private vehicles,” he said adding that this would facilitate movement of people for employment and business in either districts of Dakshina Kannada & Udupi.

He pointed out that Bangalore Rural, Bangalore Urban, Ramanagara, Chikkaballapur and Kolar are considered as a single unit as per your order No. RD158/TNR 2020 dt 03/05/2020 (Clause 2(a)).

Beijing, Feb 21: A 29-year-old Chinese doctor, who postponed his wedding to treat patients infected with the deadly coronavirus, has died treating them after being infected by the virus, the ninth fatality among the healthcare providers working to contain the outbreak.

Dr Peng Yinhua, doctor of a Wuhan hospital who treated patients infected with the coronavirus, died on Thursday night, according to the health bureau.

Peng, a respiratory acute care medical professional, became infected while working to combat the novel coronavirus at the First People's Hospital of Jiangxia District of Wuhan. He was hospitalised on January 25 and transferred to the Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital for treatment on January 30.

"Peng Yinhua, a frontline doctor at Jiangxia First Hospital in virus epicenter #Wuhan, died of #COVID19 on Thursday night. He had earlier delayed his wedding as he wanted to treat patients with the disease at hospital," state-run Global Times tweeted on Friday.

He died from the virus despite doctors' all-out efforts to save his life.

Chinese health authorities have asked health agencies to apply for the honour of martyr for deceased medical staff to the veteran's affairs authorities, comfort the families of the deceased and help solve their difficulties, as well as publicise stories of those who sacrificed their lives during the epidemic, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.

Li Wenliang, the 34-year-old Chinese doctor, who was one of the first people to sound the alarm about the new outbreak died on February 7.

Li sent a message to his medical-school alumni group on December 30, warning that seven patients had been quarantined at Wuhan Central Hospital after coming down with a respiratory illness that seemed like the SARS coronavirus. But Wuhan police reprimanded and silenced Li.

Earlier, Dr Liu Zhiming, head of the Wuchang Hospital died due to the virus. On the same day Liu Fan, senior nurse of the hospital, died along with her parents and brother due to the virus.

China’s National Health Commission earlier said that a total of 1,716 medical workers had contracted the infection as of February 11.

Peng's death takes the death toll among the medical staff to nine.

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.