Protest on Twitter against Manivannan transfer
#BringBackManivannan campaign for pro-worker officer
Bengaluru: The sudden transfer of chief secretary of the Labour Department P Manivannan, who had stood up for workers during the Corona lockdown, has given rise to objection by the working class.
While IAS officer Maheshwar Rao has been given the charge in the Department, the member of the Corona Warriors team have expressed shock on hearing of Manivannan's transfer. They have even declared that they were withdrawing from any kind of Corona-related work.
The ire is being expressed even on social media, with the #BringBackManivannan trending. The labour unions are demanding a withdrawal of the transfer, warning of staging a protest otherwise.
Manivannan had recently warned of taking action against factory owners who failed to pay the April salary to their workers. The government is being accused of transferring the officer due to pressure from industrialists.
Manivannan had also objected to the government decision to pass an ordinance on the amendment to the labour law to increase the working hours from eight to 12 without consulting leaders of labour unions.
The government has said that the transfer was due to complaints received against Manivannan on irregularities in supply of grocery kits, but the protesters have pointed out that the officer had refused legislators supply of ration kits, calling this a reason for transfer.
AITUC general secretary M D Harigovind said that the industrialists had objected to opening of an online portal for workers' complaints regarding pay and demanded Manivannan's transfer. “The government has agreed to the demand,” he concurred.
The Aam Aadmi Party and the CPM too have criticised Manivannan's transfer after he had worked effectively in the state government's struggle against spread of Corona.
In Karnataka an IAS officer has been removed from current role as Principal Secretary of the Labour Department as well as the Information and Public Relations Department.
— AutoRaja (@AutoRaja1212) May 12, 2020
Reason: He was sincere & hard working@CMofKarnataka @IASassociation#BringBackCaptain #BringBackManivannan pic.twitter.com/CRaFaWZBeO
In Karnataka an IAS officer has been removed. He is honest and hardworking person. Karnataka government should bring them back on duty. #BringBackCaptain #BringBackManivannan pic.twitter.com/lfHMBpFcDN
— Kartik Sharma (@kartiks2607) May 12, 2020
Our Journey as a Corona Warrior (Citizen Volunteer) started from this tweet. From day 1 we have worked under the guidance of Capt.
— Vijay Doddaveeraiah (@vDoddaveeraiah) May 11, 2020
& we have accomplished a lot by helping public during this Pandemic. #BringBackManivannan pic.twitter.com/al4629fKAR
Karnataka Govt decides to transfer IAS officer who was good with communication. @mani1972ias who was Principal Secretary, Labour Department.
— Gulbarga Temperature (@GulbargaTemper1) May 11, 2020
Earlier It was @mmiask Mohammad Mohsin IAS,
&
Now It's @mani1972ias Captain Manivannan !#BringBackManivannan pic.twitter.com/BjMONPR4K9
Just some pictures that speak volumes. Volunteers came together only because of one honest officer's clarion call. @mani1972ias @BSYBJP @PMOIndia @narendramodi #BringBackManivannan #BringBackCaptain #CaptainManivannan pic.twitter.com/uh5HqoQ9jW
— Vasudha Varma (@VarmaVasudha) May 12, 2020
#BringBackCaptain @BSYBJP @HMOIndia
— Pradeep Kumar (@pradeepzone) May 11, 2020
this is not the right time to do such circus
We the people of KA need him in DIPR#Bringbackmanivannan@nimmasuresh @Swamy39 @bunty6510
This tweet from @mani1972ias sir is the sole reason why manyof us volunteered and having personally seen his incredible leadership I urge his reinstatement immediately.@DIPR_COVID19 @BSYBJP #bringbackmanivannan #bringbackcaptain pic.twitter.com/IgRdRqXb1I
— suhas (@suhas_azadi) May 11, 2020
In Karnataka an IAS officer has been removed from current role as Principal Secretary of the Labour Department as well as the Information and Public Relations Department.
— Divya Singh Rajput (@DivyaSinhRajput) May 12, 2020
Reason: He was sincere & hard working@CMofKarnataka @IASassociation#BringBackCaptain #BringBackManivannan pic.twitter.com/4u3SjRE6jP
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.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
