Muthalik, 24 others acquitted in 2009 Mangaluru pub attack case for want of evidence

Bengaluru, Jul 10: Alarmed by the surging COVID-19 cases across the state, especially in Bengaluru, Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Thursday urged the state capital’s residents not to visit their villages to prevent the infection’s spread.

“I urge the people of Bengaluru not to travel to their villages and prevent the infection from spreading in rural areas,” Yediurappa told reporters.

Admitting that the battle against the virus would be long, he said that the fight against COVID-19 could be won only through persistent efforts and with people’s cooperation with the frontline ‘warriors’.

“Combating the pandemic through preventive measures, providing treatment to the infected and saving lives are our priority,” he said.

With a record 2,228 positive cases on Thursday, the southern state’s COVID-19 tally shot up to 31,105, including 17,782 active cases, while 457 people have died of the infection till date, 17 just in the last 24 hours.

Of the new cases in the state, Bengaluru accounted for 1,373, taking its tally to 13,882, including 10,870 active, while 177 have succumbed to the virus since March 9.

No deaths were, however, reported in the city on Thursday.

Of the 457 patients in intensive care units (ICU) across the state, 292 are in Bengaluru hospitals.

Since unlock began on June 1, COVID-19 cases shot up to 15,242 on June 30 from 3,221 on May 31 and to 31,105 in 9 days since July 1.

Similarly, in Bengaluru, positive cases shot up to 4,555 on June 30 from 358 on May 31 and rose to 13,882 in 9 days since July 1.

The Chief Minister also appealed to all legislators of the ruling and opposition parties to give priority to contain the disease in their Assembly segments.

“Visit the COVID-19 designated hospitals and inspect if the required facilities are in place and bring any shortcomings to our notice,” the CM said

Bengaluru, Jan 6: Activist Irom Chanu Sharmila took part in a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR) at Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall here on Sunday.

Sharmila, who came in the protest along with her child, took part in a 'burqa and bindi' protest marking the birth anniversary of social reformer Savitribai Phule.

Protests have erupted across the country over the CAA which grants citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

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.