“It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things.”
Elinor Smith
“मैंने काफी समय से यह देखा है कि सफल व्यक्ति बैठ कर घटनाओं का इंतजार नहीं करते हैं अपितु वे आगे बढ़ते हैं और कार्य को अंजाम देते हैं।”
एलिनोर स्मिथ
On July 28, World Hepatitis Day is celebrated across the World, annually. The day seeks to raise awareness on the Hepatitis, which cause deaths of around 125 000 people in Africa every year, even though the disease can be cured.
Theme of the World Hepatitis Day 2022:
About Hepatitis:
It is inflammation of the liver tissue. Some people or animals show no symptoms of hepatitis. On the other hand, others people develop yellow discoloration of skin and whites of the eyes, vomiting, poor appetite, abdominal pain, tiredness, and diarrhoea. The disease is acute, if it is treated within six months. It can be turned chronic, if it lasts more than six months. Acute hepatitis can be treated on its own, while chronic hepatitis causes failure of liver. Chronic hepatitis can lead to liver cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver failure.
Hepatitis case burden in WHO African Region:
In Africa, over 90 million people are living with hepatitis. It accounts for 26% of total cases worldwide. The disease goes undetected mostly, because of absence of any symptoms. As per WHO, prevalence of Hepatitis B in around 8% of the total populations across 19 countries. Hepatitis C is prevalent among 1% population across18 countries. Transmission of Hepatitis B from mother to child is high.
INDIA
INDIA
The road to inclusion is often long and winding. India has undertaken legal measures to empower the differently abled in the past few years: the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act in 2016 is one example. But a revised, comprehensive strategy that would address current needs and challenges is long overdue. The Indian population of PwDs is estimated to be roughly 3 crore. Among them, 1.3 crore are employable. But data show that only 34 lakh PwDs are employed across different sectors. Alarmingly, only 5 per cent of them are graduates. The figures suggest that the implementation of the provisions of the RPwD Act have been tardy in the spheres of employment and education. There are other policy failures. The Centre launched the Accessible India campaign in 2015 to create a barrier-free environment to grant accessibility to public resources and dignified living for this constituency. But a recent report illustrated that a meagre 8 per cent of public buses are partially accessible to the differently-abled, while only 48 per cent of government buildings are such. A 2020 RTI report revealed that about 19 states do not even have dedicated toilets for the disabled community. Accessibility to crucial amenities — a civil right — remains a pipe dream evidently.
Hearteningly, the recently-released draft national policy attempts to address several of these pressing concerns. It envisions a dynamic database that will provide information on a real-time basis. It also identifies areas of intervention and reiterates the government’s commitment to institutional mechanisms. The intentions are noble but this is not to say that the draft is water-tight given several glaring omissions. Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — India is a signatory — mandates political representation, something that the draft policy fails to take cognisance of. Further, it fails to plug the deficiencies in the public procurement laws that are necessary to augment disabled-friendly infrastructure. Additional budgetary allocation of 25 per cent has remained unaddressed as well. These lapses reveal an old malaise: the refusal of successive governments to move past rhetoric and work towards an integrated approach. Regular audits and periodic inspections of infrastructure, public outreach programmes, and the creation of a greater number of disabled-friendly organisations must be encouraged to ma
Source: The Telegraph, 25/07/22
The majority of the schools are within the jurisdiction of the individual State and UT Governments, and education is listed in the concurrent list of the Constitution. However, the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, has implemented a multi-pronged strategy to ensure that every student, especially those living in rural and educationally underdeveloped parts of the country, obtains uninterrupted access to education.
As a component of the Atma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan, PM e-Vidya, a comprehensive project that combines all activities connected to digital, online, and on-air education to offer multi-mode access to education, was launched on May 17, 2020. The project consists of the following elements:
Where the digital facility (Mobile Device/DTH television) is not available, the Ministry of Education has taken numerous initiatives, such as organising community/mohalla classes, community radio stations, and a podcast called Shiksha Vani of CBSE. It has also provided textbooks and worksheets to students’ homes.
The Samagra Shiksha, an Integrated Scheme for School Education, was introduced by the Department of School Education and Literacy in 2018–19. It sees the “school” as a progression from early childhood education through upper primary, secondary education, and senior secondary education.
It is a comprehensive programme for the school education industry that covers pre-kindergarten through class XII with the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education at all levels of schooling.
Samagra Shiksha is carried out in collaboration with all of the States and UTs, and financial aid is given to all of them for a number of components, including the improvement of the ICT infrastructure in schools.
Subject to budgetary constraints, the ICT component of Samagra Shiksha plans to include all Government and Aided classes VI through XII schools as well as Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs).
ICT resources will be accessible to students in lower grades in Government and Aided Schools with classes from VI to XII. 120614 schools have ICT labs approved, while 82120 schools have smart classroom approval. The elementary school instructors have been granted a total of 1482565 TABs.
The Department’s Innovation Funds are utilised to put up virtual studios, mobile classrooms, and online classrooms in schools. All states and UTs have started a Continuous Learning Plan (CLP), and in some states and UTs, pre-loaded tablets are being used successfully in remote rural locations where online classes are challenging.
Source: The Statesman, 25/07/22
The Gambia’s case against Myanmar under the international Genocide Convention, for the alleged genocide committed against the ethnic Rohingyas, is now all set to be heard and judged by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), following its rejection of Myanmar’s preliminary objections on the grounds of the court’s jurisdiction and the Gambia’s legal standing. Besides rejecting Myanmar’s objections, the ICJ also ruled that the Gambia’s application filed on 11 November 2019 was admissible, thereby allowing the case to proceed on merits. The Rohingya victims of genocide, as well as all peace-loving people who believe in the rule of law, can be certain now that we are one step closer to justice. The ICJ decision really is a huge step towards an overdue reckoning with the Myanmar military’s atrocities against the Rohingyas.
It is wellknown that the international justice system is a long-drawn complex process, which may take years to conclude. But at least the world court’s decision to proceed on substance should worry the Myanmar’s military junta that they can no longer shrug off their responsibilities for their murderous campaign against a minority ethnic group. Myanmar’s official reaction to the ICJ ruling indicates that the junta is now beginning to realise the gravity of the world court’s ruling. A statement issued by the Ministry of International Cooperation and published by the military-owned news portal Myawady says, “Myanmar is disappointed that its preliminary objections were rejected, while it notes that the court has now determined the matter.” It then admits, “Myanmar noted that this judgement will become not only a source of international law, but (will) also set a precedent for future cases.” The statement adds, “Myanmar reaffirms its position in a declaration over the ratification of the convention and respects its obligations under the convention without any violation of them.”
The ministry ends its statement with a commitment that “it will endeavour its utmost efforts to safeguard the country’s sovereignty and national interest and continue to undertake appropriate steps for the country.” Justifying its preliminary objections, the Myanmar government argued that the preliminary objections raised were believed to be strong as a matter of law and a matter of fact. And then it notes Judge Xue Hanqin’s dissenting opinion and votes against the court’s finding that it has jurisdiction and that the application is admissible. Myanmar raised four preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and the admissibility of the application. In its first preliminary objection, Myanmar argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, or alternatively that the application was inadmissible, on the grounds that the “real applicant” in the proceedings was the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
According to the second preliminary objection, the application was inadmissible because the Gambia lacked standing to bring this case. In its third preliminary objection, Myanmar asserted that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction or that the application was inadmissible since the Gambia cannot validly seise the court in light of Myanmar’s reservation to Article VIII of the Genocide Convention. In its fourth preliminary objection, Myanmar pleaded that the court lacked jurisdiction, or alternatively that the application was inadmissible, because there was no dispute between the parties under the Genocide Convention on the date of filing of the application. The court unanimously rejected three preliminary objections, and the other one (on the Gambia’s standing for bringing the case) was rejected by a 15-1 vote. The ruling on the admissibility of the Gambia’s application, too, was decided by a 15-1 vote. In both these decisions, the dissenting member of the court was Justice Xue Hanqin.
One other interesting thing to be noted is that both the ad hoc judges, Navanethem Pillay and Claus Kress, representing the Gambia and Myanmar, respectively, were in agreement with the majority of the court. Earlier on 23 January 2020, following the Gambia’s application, the ICJ issued provisional measures against Myanmar to prevent any genocidal acts in its territory against the Rohingyas and to protect them. It also asked Myanmar to take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to the alleged atrocities, and submit periodical reports to the court on all measures taken to give effect to this order, until a final decision on the case is rendered by the court. The ICJ, in its latest verdict, noted that Myanmar indeed had submitted reports on the measures taken to give effect to that order on 22 May 2020, 23 November 2020, 20 May 2021, 23 November 2021, and 23 May 2022. The court also said that the Gambia, too, had submitted comments on each of these reports.
The significance of the ICJ’s order on provisional measures were not only related to the prevention and protection of a vulnerable ethnic group, but the recognition of the Rohingyas as a distinct ethnic group in Myanmar. We don’t know what actions Myanmar has taken so far and how the Gambians have evaluated them. But, according to the ICJ, Myanmar overtly maintains its obligation to the ICJ. The unfortunate fact, however, remains that there has not been any progress at all in repatriating about one million Rohingya refugees now living in Bangladesh, and the reason, according to the UNHCR, is Myanmar’s failure to create an environment where safe and dignified return of the Rohingyas is possible. The ICJ’s decision to proceed on the merits to examine the Gambia’s genocide allegations against Myanmar also gives us an opportunity for a diplomatic push on repatriation.
The Gambia has submitted its main arguments in October 2020 within the time frame fixed by the court. So, it is expected that Myanmar will now have to submit its response soon. As Canada and the Netherlands have joined the Gambia in its pursuit for justice for the Rohingyas, we hope the legal course will gather new strength. With the legal proceedings moving forward, it is high time for us to pile up political pressure on the Myanmar military junta, too.
KAMAL AHMED
Source: The Statesman, 27/07/22