Divided in Love, Rishi-Ranbir are united in their hate of media
Subhash K. Jha
Rishi Kapoor and his son Ranbir don't see eye to eye on any issue. Both father and son have told me that the relationship is, at best, troubled and unfulfilled, and that father and son communicate through Neetu Kapoor.
While they agree to disagree on most issues, there is one thing that Rishi and Ranbir agree on. It is their aversion to the press. While Ranbir discreetly chooses to stay away from the paparazzi and secretly holds them responsible for his relationship problems (how? Don't ask). Rishi openly and contemptuously lashes out at the media at every given opportunity. This seems a little silly considering how much he likes to talk.
Rishi, of course, conveniently retracts when the situation gets sticky for him. Repeatedly, he puts his foot in his mouth and then blames the media for it.
In his latest outburst against the media, Rishi was joined by his elder brother Randhir, who complained that his grandson Taimur Ali Khan (daughter Kareena's son) was not getting a normal upbringing because of the intrusive paparazzi.
But, isn't the exposure of the child to the media the parents' choice? If Taimur and the earlier star-kid favourite AbRam are getting more attention than Aamir Khan's little son Azaad, does it mean Saif Ali Khan and Shah Rukh Khan are bigger stars than Aamir? Or that Taimur and AbRam are more popular children in the media than Azaad or Aaradhya?
No. Aamir has chosen to keep his son away from the limelight. And the Bachchans too have decided they will limit Aaradhya's public appearance.
"Normal" is a state of mind which most celebrities are progressively isolated from. Before seeking normality, Taimur's family needs to define it and decide what is normal for them. Being in the limelight is not normal for children from working-class homes. Being celebrity parents if you have a problem with your child getting undue public exposure, then the choice is yours.
Just say no. Unfortunately, it is not a "no" that Bollywood's biggest want. They want yes-men masquerading as mediapersons to write exactly what they want. Sadly, in the hunger for news, the entertainment media is swallowing every bone in the mistaken hope of finding some meat. This week there were two absurd reports which no one swallowed. One suggested that Shah Rukh Khan had turned down two roles offered by Sanjay Leela Bhansali.
First, our actors should know it is extremely bad manners to talk about turning down roles. Nowhere else in the world do actors and their overzealous PR machinery speak on roles that are turned down. Secondly, which are these two films that Bhansali is making to offer them to Mr Khan? He hasn't even begun planning his next. Thirdly, at this juncture in his career, when the projects that he's choosing are letting him down, why would Mr Khan turn down Bhansali?
Even more ludicrous are reports that Priyanka Chopra is likely to do a sequel to "Aetraaz". So says producer Subhash Ghai. Is Priyanka Chopra mad to return to the role of a female predator who crawls and slobbers all over her employee Akshay Kumar. In this era of Harvey Weinstein, the last role Priyanka Chopra would play is that of a sexual predator.
Stars want to be politically correct in their postures both off and on screen. But for that to happen, they first need to look at their own lives and rectify the anomalies and contradictions. So please don't give interviews after downing a few pegs in the evening and then deny your quotes when you see them staring at you the next morning.
(Subhash K Jha can be contacted at jhasubh@gmail.com)
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
