What Is Nipah Virus? Outbreak in India Kills at Least 10

By Rachael Rettner, Senior Writer | May 21, 2018 05:10pm ET

The Nipah virus in a sample of cerebrospinal fluid from an infected patient.Credit: BSIP/UIG/Getty

At least 10 people in India have died from a rare virus known as Nipah virus, according to news reports.

The deaths occurred in Kerala, a state in southern India, according to the BBC. Two other people have tested positive for the virus and are critically ill, and an additional 40 people have been put into quarantine after having contact with those who died, the BBC reported.

Nipah virus infection is an emerging disease that was first identified in 1999 during an outbreak among pig farmers in Malaysia and Singapore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

The virus is thought to naturally infect fruit bats (of the genus Pteropus), but it can also infect pigs and other domesticated animals, as well as humans, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The virus can also spread from person to person. [10 Deadly Diseases That Hopped Across Species]

Nipah virus can cause an inflammation of the brain known as encephalitis, according to the CDC. Symptoms can include fever and headache, followed by drowsiness, disorientation and confusion. People who are infected with the virus may fall into a coma within 48 hours of showing symptoms, the CDC says.

The virus can be highly lethal, with an average fatality rate of around 75 percent, according to the WHO.

Human infections with Nipah virus in India and Bangladesh have been linked with eating raw date palm sap contaminated by fruit bats, and contact with bats, the CDC said.

There's no drug to treat the illness and no vaccine to prevent it. "We are now concentrating on precautions to prevent the spread of the disease since the treatment is limited to supportive care," Rajeev Sadanandan, Kerala's health secretary, told the BBC today (May 21).

Editor's note: This article was updated on May 22 at 12:30 pm ET with new information on the number of deaths tied to the outbreak.

Source: Live Science 

Restoring trust

SC does well to circumscribe Karnataka governor. It must define boundaries of gubernatorial discretion

Written by UPENDRA BAXI | Published: May 18, 2018 11:59:35 pm

The present events in Karnataka poignantly demonstrate what has been repeatedly shown in Independent India’s history.

The present uses to which the Constitution is put remain bewildering to a lay citizen. Bommai v Union of India (1994) held explicitly that in situations where there is a hung assembly (where no political party has obtained a clear majority of seats), the final decision rests not with the various feuding parties but with the concerned legislature through a “floor” test (voting on a confidence vote. This means that the governor’s discretion is always a triggering act that enables the legislature to decide the matter. The gubernatorial discretion is an aspect of trusteeship; the final powers vest with the concerned legislature. But it may not be used to defeat or to deny the constitutional provisions like that of anti-defection in the Tenth Schedule.

Constitutional “good faith” requires an “informed” act of discretion resting on “sound basis,” aiming to provide a “stable” government. Further, all three considerations have to be applied with (in President Abdul Kalam’s words echoing the Sarkaria Commission Report) a duty to “rise above day-to-day politics and override compulsions emanating from the central system or the state system” (regardless of a pre-poll or post-poll alliance).

Courts, commissions, and academic commentators have reiterated the pivotal role of governors in creating an expeditious floor test, within 48 hours or a week (though the maximum period is 15 days). But while impartiality is theoretically prescribed, it has always proved to be a difficult virtue. Governors are appointed on sheer political expediency; the courts remind them repeatedly of their constitutional position and role. But ultimately, it is the responsibility of legislatures to conduct themselves constitutionally. What can be said in favour of the decision taken by Vajubhai Vala? The chosen legal experts (whose names are not in the public domain) probably advised him that there were no fixed parameters for the exercise of discretionary powers. In addition, there were two diametrically opposed views that thrived on the cultivated confusion between “mandate” and the appropriate method of calling a “majority” party to form a government.

The mandate idea has been extensively discussed in Kesavananda and cannot be explored here but it is well known that a larger voting percentage share does not necessarily translate into a higher number of seats in our electoral system. What is relevant to the governor’s exercise of discretion is not the popular mandate but assignation of the prerogative to form the government to a single majority party. Precedents of gubernatorial discretion are varied, and the governor may decide according to each situation. However, it is settled that the floor test should be done expeditiously within 48 hours or a week. The outright grant of 15 days is an open invitation for “ideological realignment”— a term that conceals buying and selling of legislator’s party preferences. The governor, as it happens, did not check fully the evidence of prima facie majority, although he was aware that the post-poll coalition had 116 members against the claim of the BJP 104 seats. The BJP’s act of political hope that it will manage to rise somehow to the required majority from its 104 seats should have been closely examined to avoid the allegation that action was undertaken without due diligence.

The present events in Karnataka poignantly demonstrate what has been repeatedly shown in Independent India’s history. As Udai Raj Rai says, political institutions “work by natural play of political forces, and not by decorative, though irritating, discourses and platitudinous discussions”. In other words, what matters is the acquisition, distribution, exchange, and consumption of the power to rule, although it is dressed on all sides by appeals to democratic ideals and constitutional faith.

But the interpretation of norms and their development are judicial duties. Unlike political actors who pursue politics of interest, courts perform the politics of values (not what we desire but what we ought to). Power may conscript the values of the Constitution to its own ends, but constitutional courts do not act in self-interested ways. The trick consists in retooling the law and jurisprudence as an “enterprise” (to use Lon Fuller’s words); there is no guarantee that the enterprise will always succeed but is it a reason to altogether abandon the quest?

The late midnight sitting of the Supreme Court of India on May 16/17 suggested some grounds for hope. While declaring itself unable to stay the early morning swearing in of B S Yeddyurappa, the SC asked him to file an appearance and to share the two letters handed to the governor claiming majority for the BJP. It also described as “preposterous” the argument of the attorney general that the defection law “will not apply before the elected Member is sworn as an MLA”.

Continuing the hearing on May 18, the same Bench comprising Justices A K Sikri, S A Bobde and Ashok Bhushan, took the view that a floor test was the most “practical option” and overruling the Karnataka counsel, ordered a floor test on Saturday at 4 pm. The Court was also assured that no member of the Anglo-Indian community will be appointed for now and the pro tem speaker shall conduct the proceedings. Some controversy has already arisen on the choice of K G Bopaiah (not the seniormost member of the legislature) as pro term speaker. The substantive proceedings in the next 10 weeks will hopefully settle the nature and scope of gubernatorial discretion. The SC should also develop its powers of suggestive jurisprudence to reinforce the Sarkaria and Puncchi commission reports. It should resolutely negate the Law Commission draft white paper (from April 17, which recommends simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the assemblies from 2019) which problematically suggests the relaxation of provisions of the Tenth Schedule in the case of a hung Parliament or assembly.

The Supreme Court’s revival of democracy will for long be applauded, and it must continue its quest to augment constitutional discipline, regardless of the political events today. To ensure an agenda of effective norms that arrest the abuse of discretion and power from all our political institutions is a Herculean task, but one that alone justifies judicial review powers.

The writer is professor of law, University of Warwick, and former vice chancellor of Universities of South Gujarat and Delhi

Source: indianexpress

When governors use discretion indiscriminately

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram | TNN | May 18, 2018

On June 1, 1949 the Constituent Assembly witnessed some of the most polarising debates on the role and powers of the governor. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s assurances did not convince its members. The most persuasive argument for a governor is that such a person would be above political partisanship. But, recent developments raise serious doubts about the role of governors in accord with sentiments expressed by the Constituent Assembly.

Article 163 of the Constitution says the governor will be advised by the council of ministers except for functions which require his discretion. The discretionary powers include that of inviting government formation after elections.

Recently, a piquant situation arose in Karnataka, where no single party could command a simple majority. This led to the BJP and post-poll allies Congress and Janata Dal (S) both staking claim to form the government. With a fractured mandate, Karnataka governor Vajubhai Vala invited BJP’s B S Yeddyurappa to form the government and win the trust vote within 15 days.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the Rameshwar Prasad vs Union case, said there is nothing wrong in "post-poll adjustments" and it can be carried out "when ideological similarity weighs with any political party to support another political party though there was no pre-poll alliance". The judgment has been pressed into service before the Supreme Court to challenge Vala's decision.

Of late, many governors have been criticised for expanding their discretionary powers suo motu. Tamil Nadu governor Banwarilal Purohit has been criticised for running a parallel administration of universities within TN and appointing vice-chancellors without consulting the state government. Purohit was already under fire for conducting "review meetings" of government schemes.

Kerala governor P Sathasivam, a former Chief Justice of India, recently faced an embarrassing situation where an ordinance promulgated by him was stayed by the Supreme Court. While doing so, the apex court found that the ordinance "blatantly seeks to nullify the binding effect of the order passed by this court".

Puducherry’s lieutenant governor Kiran Bedi recently passed a directive linking the distribution of free rice with the sanitation of rural communities in the Union territory. After coming under fire from politicians, activists and academics alike, Bedi retracted this directive in less than 24 hours, but, she continues to step on the toes of the Congress government.

The most important function of the governor is to ensure the formation of a stable government in accordance with constitutional principles. Vala’s decision to invite BJP to form government in Karnataka goes against established constitutional principles and precedents set in the recent cases of Goa, Manipur and Meghalaya. Similarly, in Bihar, a very belated post-poll alliance under Nitish Kumar was given the government reins at the expense of the largest party (Rashtriya Janata Dal) in the state. Looking at the various states, it would seem that discretionary powers of the governors are prone to indiscretion.

Now, there is a pressing need to reassess Centre-state relations in general and the functions of the governor in specific. Time is ripe for another inquiry committee along the lines of the one headed by P V Rajamannar to study the constitutional role and scope of governors in the country.

(The writer is an advocate and a spokesperson of the DMK)

Source: timesofindia

శ్రీ కౌముది మే 2018

శ్రీ కౌముది మే 2018

Why politicians eat with Dalits

Dalits are probably the most vibrant, decisive political constituency in India today. Unless these gestures go with effective action on core concerns, Dalits would regard them with as much scorn as they deserve, says Valerian Rodrigues.

Written by Amrith Lal | Updated: May 4, 2018 7:55:19 am

It is important to understand the significance of these gestures at a time of Dalit self-assertion — whether they merely constitute a politics of optics, or have a resonance with the population they are aimed at. (Illustration: CR Sasikumar)

The BJP has asked its leaders to eat at the homes of Dalits as part of the party’s outreach to the community. The Congress had earlier highlighted Rahul Gandhi’s visits to Dalit homes, eating with the families and staying the night. It is important to understand the significance of these gestures at a time of Dalit self-assertion — whether they merely constitute a politics of optics, or have a resonance with the population they are aimed at. What is the message in the political mainstream embarking on an outreach that has communal inter-dining, an important aspect of the anti-caste politics in the early decades of the 20th century, as its central plank? Ambedkar scholar VALERIAN RODRIGUES, Ambedkar Chair at Ambedkar University Delhi, explained to AMRITH LAL the history, context and centrality of the politics of inter-dining in India’s anti-caste politics.

What is the political history of inter-dining in India?

Commensality is a much more complex problem in India than merely an attribute of caste. It is bound not just with the vegetarian-non-vegetarian divide, but also with what is regarded as vegetarian and non-vegetarian, and with whom, when and where one can eat. Initially, while one could eat kuchcha food outside of one’s caste, one could not eat pakka food. There were significant changes over time with the evolution of the public space, and its expressions such as hotels, eateries, and hostels, and with access to temple premises where food is served. Traditionally, Ramanandis, Kabirpanthis, Lingayats etc. who subscribed to egalitarianism, violated the rule of commensality. Within sub-castes, the prohibition on inter-dining has declined in many parts of the country. But the big barrier has been at the social divide where caste, class, occupation, and food habits overlap. Dalits and the majority of lower castes are non-vegetarians, if they have a choice.

During the early 20th century, alongside the complex nationalist churning, inter-dining came to be promoted in several places, particularly in working class solidarities. But it never became a larger expression of sociality in India. The Congress under Gandhian aegis turned definitively vegetarian.

How significant is the symbolism of an upper caste leader of a non-Dalit party eating at a Dalit home?

Eating in common the same food cooked by members of a community in common vessels and served in common plates has been an expression of community bonds in many parts of India. The rebellion against social codes was manifested in the violation of the injunctions that forbade a member from eating outside. While an upper caste leader eating in Dalit homes might symbolically express that he is prepared to be included in their community bond, the instrumental use of such gestures is very obvious to everyone, including to Dalits.

Inter-dining was important in the anti-caste politics of the last century. Post-Ambedkar, post-Mandal, does it retain the same progressive pull for Dalits?

Dalits have far more serious concerns — atrocities, social exclusion, marginality, food, education, employment, housing, representation and dignity — to worry about than inter-dining. Inter-dining as a regular practice involving families and castes which were hitherto non-commensal may help in reinforcing community bonds if it goes alongside one or more of the above concerns. Even in cases of inter-dining, the real test would be if Dalits ate alongside the upper castes, and were invited to do so in the houses of the upper castes, as Minister Uma Bharti has suggested. The available data suggest it is very uncommon for upper-caste urban middle- class society in India to reach out to Dalit urban middle classes in common dining in their houses.

So are food and dining still markers of caste purity and hierarchy in the Hindu social order?

As mentioned earlier, these markers were challenged by social reformers, and renunciatory sects did not adhere to them wholly. The national movement in India, and particularly Dr B R Ambedkar, put this issue up front, although he thought that taboos of inter-dining are profoundly caught with the ideology that governs practices of caste and untouchability. There is an expansive public today that may not practise many of the taboos that inform eating and drinking. But it does not mean that the normative values governing such practices have undergone much change. Some spaces such as the interiors of the house, dining with families, and appreciating culinary diversity, remain very uncommon.

Can it be said then, that in an era in which Dalit politics is focussed on rights and self-respect, a politics of gestures is unlikely to yield political dividend?

Rights and self-respect are strongly caught with community practices. While politics of gestures may not hold the key to Dalit sensibilities, the prohibition of commensality, and in the way it is practised towards Dalits, is an affront to their dignity and associated rights.

How then should non-Dalit parties seek to address Dalit concerns?

I have mentioned above some of the most important concerns before Dalits today. Eventually, every party is going to be judged on the basis of its sensitivity towards these concerns. Dalits are probably the most vibrant and decisive political constituency in India today. If gestures go along with effective action on core concerns, well and good. Otherwise, Dalits would regard the gestures with as much scorn as they deserve.

Source: indianexpress