Rohingya situation one of worst human rights crises: Antonio Guterres
United Nations, Aug 29 : Describing the Rohingya refugee situation as one of the worst humanitarian and human rights crises of the past year, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called for international action to ensure Myanmar is held to account for the crimes of its security forces.
Speaking at a Security Council session convened on Tuesday for the one-year anniversary of the start of the exodus of 720,000 Rohingyas to Bangladesh, Guterres also condemned the attacks by extremists against the security forces.
However, he added that nothing can ever justify the disproportionate use of force against civilians and the horrendous violation of human rights violations by the security forces.
Urging united action by the divided Security Council, Guterres cited a report issued on Monday by a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) fact-finding team and said the human rights abuses amounted to "the gravest crimes under international law".
He thanked the Bangladesh government for its generosity in hosting the refugees and said more needs to be done by the world community as only 33 per cent of the $951 million UN appeal for assistance has been met and the the monsoon season looms.
The current crisis began in August 2017 with attacks on Myanmar security posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), which is led by Karachi-born Ata Ullah.
The Myanmar armed forces and vigilantes retaliated brutally against the Rohingyas starting an exodus that began on August 25.
Tariq Mahmood Ahmad, the British Minister of State for the UN, who presided over the Security Council session, said that it should be prepared to use all the tools it has to ensure justice for the Rohingyas.
The strongly-worded report by the UNHRC team headed by former Indonesian attorney-general Marzuki Darusman said that allegations of genocide against Myanmar officials should be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or to a special tribunal.
The Netherlands and Sweden backed the suggestion and asked the Security Council to refer the matter to the ICC.
But Russia and China countered saying that the situation required a non-confrontational approach and only a bilateral diplomatic solution involving Myanmar and Bangladesh would work.
Myanmar's Permanent Representative Hau Do Suan said that his country did not accept the findings of the UNHRC team as it was biased.
However, he added that Myanmar does not condone human rights abuses and would take action against anyone guilty if there was evidence of their conduct.
He alleged that the ARSA had set up terrorist bases in some areas along the border with Bangladesh.
Bangladesh Permanent Representative Masud Bin Momen said that in the light of the UNHRC team's report, it was imperative that the Security Council should act decisively.
He said that the Rohingyas could not return to their homes in Rakhine state unless they were assured of their safety.
For this, the Myanmar government should take several steps like curbing hate speech, allowing free access to UN agencies for relief operations and dismantling internal camps for Rohingyas and giving them freedom of movement.
Australian-born actor Cate Blanchett, who is a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, spoke at the Security Council session about her encounters with Rohingya refugees who told her harrowing tales of their experiences in Myanmar.
She said that as a mother she was moved by the plight of the children she met as she saw her children reflected in them.
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)
