India slips 10 spots in 2019 global Democracy Index over threats to civil liberties

Jammu, Jan 6: Union Minister Jitendra Singh on Sunday said India is the only shelter for religiously persecuted Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities who come from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan, for the safety of their life and honour.

"India owes responsibility towards the minorities living in these countries which proclaim Islam as their state religion," Singh said here while launching the BJP's countrywide 10-day mass contact drive to spread awareness about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Accompanied by senior party colleagues, including former deputy chief minister Kavinder Gupta and former minister Sat Sharma, he began by visiting the house of veteran columnist, writer and Padmashri awardee K L Pandita, where he spent time with them discussing the Act.

Later, he visited prominent social activist Amjad Mirza, eminent Sikh religious leader Baba Swaranjit Singh, retired High Court judge Justice G D Sharma, veteran journalist and former bureau head of Hind Samachar group Gopal Sachar, retired principal of Jammu government medical college Subhash Gupta, social activist and president of Peoples' Forum Ramesh Sabharwal, among others.

During his interaction with them, the Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office claimed that Congress leaders and their allies protesting against the Act are doing so without "conviction".

He opined that if a "survey" was conducted among the family members of these Congress leaders, then, even they would not support their "anti-CAA stand".

"The tragedy of Congress party and contemporary leaders of Congress is that either they do not read their own history or are blissfully ignorant of the statements made by their own party patriarchs and former prime ministers," he said.

The minister recalled that the Nehru-Liaquat Pact of 1950 was inspired by the realisation on the part of the then Congress government headed by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru that minorities, particularly Hindus, were not getting a fair deal in Pakistan.

"In 1949, Nehru had written a letter expressing concern about people coming in from then East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh, and while doing so, he had referred to Hindus coming from there as 'refugees' and Muslims arriving here as 'immigrants'," Singh said.

Further, Nehru had stated that India owed a "responsibility" to these refugees, the minister said.

Referring to the opposition of senior Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi to the amended legislation, the minister said someone should show them records of proceedings of the winter session of Parliament in 1950 when their great-grandfather (Nehru) had himself said that they deserved to be given citizenship and if the law was inadequate for it, then, the law should be changed.

"PM Modi should actually be given credit for showing courage and conviction to carry forward the task, which the Congress government lacked, to accomplish this," the minister opined.

Singh reiterated that a false fear psychosis against Muslims is being sought to be manufactured when there is no place as safe and comfortable to live for the community as India.

Turning the tables on the opposition to the National Population Register(NPR) and proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), Singh pointed out that PM Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah have been stating that the exercise on NRC is yet to begin.

He also said that it was then Union home minister P Chidambaram, who had stated in Parliament in 2010 that NPR could be a basis for NRC.

New Delhi, May 14: India may witness the death of additional 1.2-6 lakh children over the next one year from preventable causes as a consequence to the disruption in regular health services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, UNICEF has warned.

The warning comes from a new study that brackets India with nine other nations from Asia and Africa that could potentially have the largest number of additional child deaths as a consequence to the pandemic.

These potential child deaths will be in addition to the 2.5 million children who already die before their fifth birthday every six months in the 118 countries included in the study.

The estimate is based on an analysis by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published in the Lancet.  

This means the global mortality rate of children dying before their fifth birthday, one of the key progress indicators in all of the global development, could potentially increase for the first time since 1960 when the data was first collected.

There were 1.04 million under-5 deaths in India in 2017, of which nearly 50% (0.57 million) were neonatal deaths. The highest number of under-5 deaths was in Uttar Pradesh (312,800 which included 165,800 neonatal deaths) and Bihar (141,500 which included 75,300 neonatal deaths).

The researchers looked at three scenarios, factoring in parameters like reduction in workforce, supplies and access to healthcare for services like family planning, antenatal care, childbirth care, postnatal care, vaccination and preventive care for early childhood. The effects are modelled for a period of three months, six months and 12 months.  

In scenario-1 marked by 10-18% reduction of coverage of all the services, the number of additional children deaths could be in the range of 30,000 plus over three months, more than 60,000 over six months and above 120,000 over the next 12 months.

Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths on May 13

The numbers sharply rose to nearly 55,000; 109,000 and 219,000 respectively for scenario-2, which was associated with an 18-28% drop in all the regular services.

But in the worst-case scenario in which 40-50% of the services are not available, the number of additional deaths ballooned to 1.5 lakhs in the three months in the short-range to nearly six lakhs over a year.

The ten countries that could potentially have the largest number of additional child deaths are Bangladesh, Brazil, Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uganda and Tanzania.

In countries with already weak health systems, COVID-19 is causing disruptions in medical supply chains and straining financial and human resources.

Visits to health care centres are declining due to lockdowns, curfews and transport disruptions, and due to the fear of infection among the communities. Such disruptions could result in potentially devastating increases in maternal and child deaths, the UN agency warned.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.