Government using armed forces to defend its decisions on Rafale deal: Congress
New Delhi, Sep 12 : The Congress on Wednesday accused the government of making the armed forces "pawn" in its political battle over the Rafale deal and said that it was not prepared to reveal the price at which the fighters jets have been purchased.
Congress Spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the party will not drag the services into the political arena after Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa asserted that the Rafale jets will power the Indian Air Force (IAF) to fight "grave threats" from Pakistan and China.
"It is most distressing, disgusting and deplorable that the government is putting forward our armed forces' persons like this. We respect them, be it the soldiers, be it the chief. In the political arena, I do not want to drag them despite the worst provocation," Singhvi said on Dhanoa's remarks.
He said that it was not appropriate to put the Army, Navy or Air Force chief to defend yourself (government).
"I do not know where your 56 inch chest has gone that you are putting these people in front," he said while taking a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Singhvi said that the Congress had made a straightforward political allegation on the deal in the last one year which the Modi government is unable to answer.
"I will deal with your Defence Minister, your Finance Minister, your Prime Minister. But I will not engage the service chief whom we respect. Do not make our service people pawns in this game," he said.
Singhvi accused the Modi government of seeking to derail the issue.
"The rules of the game are changed and an attempt has been made to mislead. Who has ever said that Rafale is not a good aircraft? In one year have we said so? Is it our case?" he asked.
Referring to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley's remarks that the fighter jet purchased by the NDA government from France was nine per cent cheaper than that negotiated by the then UPA government in its basic cost whereas its weaponised version was 20 per cent cheaper, Singhvi said that the government should spell out the figures it was referring to while putting out such calculations.
"Common sense tells me that nine per cent or 20 per cent is less from some figure. Why don't you tell us that figure? A kindergarten student knows that 20 per cent or 9 per cent less has to have a figure from which it is less -- that they will never tell. So, there is no answer to our question -- it remains unanswered. The question is what is the price (of each Rafale jet)?"
"The question is -- why is there no manufacturing in India? Why is there no value addition under the offset? What happened to 'Make in India' initiative? These things will never be answered," he said.
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_28.jpeg)
