JD(S) leader accuses Cong of neglecting Hindus in coastal Karnataka; U T Khader hits back

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.

Bengaluru, Apr 7: Leader of Opposition in Karnataka Siddaramaiah on Monday urged Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa to announce a special package to help farmers, agriculture labourers and also working class in various sectors who are affected by the lockdown.

Mr Siddaramaiah put forth his demands during a telephonic conversation and the Chief Minister positively responding to it informed that he will formulate a programme keeping in mind the suggestions made by the Opposition, a statement from the LoP's office said.

It said, the Chief Minister also spoke to Mr Siddaramaiah regarding the government's decision to stop supply of free food for poor and needy through Indira Canteens.

Mr Siddaramaiah on Saturday had written to Yediyurappa urging him to utilise Indira Canteens efficiently and provide food for poor and needy until the coronavirus crisis and lockdown is over.

The former Chief Minister's letter had come a day after the state government had decided not to provide free food at Indira Canteens as concerns were raised about the quality and misuse that was happening.

It had, however, decided to continue to provide subsidised food- breakfast at Rs 5 and lunch and dinner at Rs 10, as usual.

Mr Yediyurappa during the phone conversation on Monday appraised Siddaramaiah that the decision to supply food by fixing a price was taken to stop misuse that was happening.

Mr Siddaramaiah, however, insisted the government should provide food free of cost to the poor and needy, by taking care that misuse doesn't happen.

The senior Congress leader asked the Chief Minister to take action against errant officials who allowed misuse to happen, the statement said, adding that Yediyurappa has promised to look into it.

Initially, the government last month had decided that the state subsidised Indira Canteens would provide food packets free of cost to the poor and needy in the wake of the lockdown.

Feb 3: The Karnataka government is probably the only state to have so many nodal agencies to deal with investment proposals. There is the KIADB, Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, State High Level Clearance Committee (SHLCC), State Level Single Window Clearance Committee (SLSWCC) and District Level Single Window Clearance Committee.

While the government claims these have been created to speed up the process of setting up industries, they’re only delaying it. “A four-to-five year delay in acquiring land has become the norm,’’ say industry sources.

“These entities are only adding layers of obstacles to investors and is not really helping industries,” said a senior IAS officer.

While DLSWCCs are headed by deputy commissioners are empowered to clear investment proposals up to Rs 15 crore, SLSWCC, headed by the industries minister, clears proposals more than Rs 15 crore and up to Rs 500 crore. Proposals worth more than Rs 500 crore have to be cleared by SHLCC chaired by the CM. These entities have to meet regularly and clear proposals. But often, these meetings don’t happen as scheduled. “The delay starts from here,” said Vasant Ladava, industrialist and member of Karnataka Industries and Commerce, Bengaluru.

The single-window agencies involving representatives of departments like industries, revenue, pollution control board and forest are supposed to collectively give necessary clearances required for industries. “But, of late, they have become only project approvers without other responsibilities, leaving investors in the lurch,” said Ladava.