VHP leader justifies murder of innocent Muslim; urges Hindus to support killers

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.

Mangaluru, Feb 17: Kambala superstar Shrinivas Gowda, who is drawing comparisons to ace sprinter Usain Bolt, has reportedly refused to take part in athletics trials with the Sports Authority of India.

28-year-old Gowda, who hails from Moodbidri in Dakshina Kannada, was celebrated as a potential Olympian after a clip of his race went viral, amid claims that he had done 100m in 9.55 seconds, against Bolt's record of 9.58. He has so far won 32 medals in 11 kambala events this season.

Union sports minister Kiren Rijiju and SAI said Gowda would appear for trials at SAI's Bengaluru centre on Monday. The government "will do everything to identify sporting talents", Rijiju had tweeted.

"I will meet the Chief Minister. I am keen on continuing in kambala," Gowda said. Asked about the clamour for a crossover into athletics, he said, "For the time being I have no plans to appear for SAI trials. I am busy with the Kambala season and will consider meeting them following that and after consulting my well-wishers."

Bengaluru, Jun 5: An FIR has been filed against former journalist and human rights activist Aakar Anil Patel in Bengaluru here over his comments on social media under charges pertaining to provocation with intent to cause riots.

The FIR was registered under Section 117 (abetting commission of an offence by the public or by more than ten persons), 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), and 505-1-B (intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the JC Nagar police station.

According to the FIR filed on June 2, Patel had tweeted that protests like the ones in the US over George Floyd's death are needed in India by the marginalised communities.

Patel, former chief of Amnesty International India, had on May 31 posted from his Twitter account, which is not verified.

On May 25, Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, following which protests against police brutality and racism erupted in various cities in the United States. The protests were later replaced by incidents of violence across the country.

India also has witnessed several cases of mob lynchings and custodial deaths in recent years. In most cases victims belong to down trodden communities such as Muslims and Dalits.

Responding to the development, Amnesty International India has said that FIR against Patel is another example of how the right to dissent is being "increasingly" criminalised.

"The Bengaluru police must stop abusing its authority and put an end to the intimidation and harassment of Aakar Patel for exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. People of this country have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests - without fear or unlawful interference," Amnesty International India Executive Director Avinash Kumar said.

He said that peacefully protesting against the government is not a crime and added that not agreeing with the policies of those in power does not make you a traitor.