Ram Madhav withdraws charge that 'instruction from Pak' after Omar Abdullah’s dare
New Delhi, Nov 22: NC leader Omar Abdullah's dare to BJP general secretary Ram Madhav Thursday to prove his charge that the alliance to form government in Jammu and Kashmir was at Pakistan's behest has prompted the saffron party leader to withdraw his words.
The BJP and National Conference (NC) leaders exchanged sharp words on Twitter, a day after the state's governor dissolved the assembly, with Madhav asking Abdullah to fight the next polls together with the PDP if "genuine love" between the two parties promoted a "failed government" formation attempt.
PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti had Wednesday written to Governor Satya Pal Malik that she will stake claim to form government with the support of the Congress and the NC.
It was followed by another bid from the two-member People's Conference which claimed the support of the BJP and 18 legislators from other parties.
As Malik dissolved the assembly, Madhav, who is his party's points man for the state, alleged that "fresh instructions" were given to the two regional parties from across the border to come together and form a government.
The NC and PDP, he alleged, had boycotted local body polls in the state earlier because of instructions from Pakistan. Both regional parties have been arch political rivals in the state.
Abdullah took to Twitter to hit out at the BJP leader.
"You have RAW, NIA & IB at your command (CBI too is your parrot) so have the guts to place evidence in the public domain. Either prove this or be man enough to apologise. Don't practice shoot & scoot politics," the former chief minister said.
Ram Madhav responded, "Just take it in your stride Omar Abdullah. Not questioning your patriotism at all. But the sudden love between NC and PDP and the hurry to form government leads to many suspicions and political comments. Not to offend you." In the tweet, he added an emoji with a toothy smile.
Abdullah did not seem amused.
"No, misplaced attempts at humour won't work. You HAVE claimed my party has been acting at the behest of Pakistan. I dare you to prove it! Place the evidence of your allegation of NC boycott of ULB polls at Pak behest in public domain," he tweeted.
Ram Madhav then responded with a tweet which appeared to be aimed at defusing the tensions.
"Now that you deny any external pressure I take back my comment, but now that you proved it was genuine love between NC and PDP that prompted a failed government formation attempt, you should fight next elections together. Mind you it's political comment and not personal," he said, adding a laughing emoji.
Addressing a press conference in Srinagar, the NC leader repeated his demand for an apology from Madhav.
"You cannot undermine the sacrifices made by National Conference workers in protecting the sovereignty of this country. He must apologise," he said.
I dare you @rammadhavbjp ji to prove your allegation. You have RAW, NIA & IB at your command (CBI too is your parrot) so have the guts to place evidence in the public domain. Either prove this or be man enough to apologise. Don’t practice shoot & scoot politics. https://t.co/KEbOo0z6O2
— Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) November 22, 2018
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)
