India regrets Kashmir issue being raised at UNHRC
United Nations, Sep 12 : India has expressed regret that the Kashmir issue is being raised at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) after mentions of it by Michelle Bachelet, the new UN Human Rights High Commissioner, and by Pakistan at its current session.
"Terrorism is the biggest scourge and greatest violator of human rights and we hope that you will address it more emphatically in the coming years," Rajiv K. Chander, India's Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, told Bachelet on Tuesday at the HRC meeting in Geneva.
He told the HRC, "We regret that reference has been made to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Our views on the matter have been made abundantly clear in the Council."
It is important that "human rights issues are handled constructively" and with regard to national sovereignty and territorial integrity in a transparent and credible manner, he added.
In an apparent reference to the Supreme Court striking down the British colonial law criminalising same-sex relations as an example of the capability of Indian legal bodies to deal with human rights issues, Chander said, "From recent developments it is evident our institutions are responsive and capable of meeting the aspirations and needs of the vast and thriving milieu of people."
On Monday, in her first address to the HRC, Bachelet had said the recent human rights report on Kashmir had not been followed up and emphasised that her office would continue monitoring and reporting on the situation there.
The strongly-worded report released by her predecessor, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein in June, outlined what it said were human rights abuses on both sides of the line of control and called for an international commission to investigate the human rights situation.
He had also repeatedly asked India to allow human rights monitors to visit Kashmir, which New Delhi has refused asserting that happenings in Kashmir were its internal affairs and there could be no external intervention.
Bachelet said that there has not been "even open and serious discussions on how the grave issues raised (in the report) could be addressed" and added that her office would continue to request permission to visit both sides of the line of control.
"The people of Kashmir have exactly the same rights to justice and dignity as people all over the world, and we urge the authorities to respect them," she said.
She balanced the criticism of India by hailing last week's Supreme Court decision to decriminalise same-sex relations and declared, "I very much hope other countries around the world will look to India's example in this respect."
On Tuesday, Farukh Amil, Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, told the HRC in his national capacity that Pakistan shares Bachelet's "anguish" over Kashmir and endorsed her call for implementing the report's recommendations.
Since the report was released, "the plight of Kashmiris has only worsened with 60 civilians killed," he asserted.
Islamabad was willing to allow a Human Rights Commissioner's team to visit the area of Kashmir under its control only if New Delhi would also give a similar access, Amil said.
He also brought up the 70-year-old resolutions of the Security Council and said that a plebiscite should be held under them, even though Islamabad had not kept its agreement to withdraw from the occupied areas to facilitate it.
He had another opportunity to speak to the HRC on behalf of the 53-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation when he made a passing reference to Kashmir, lumping it with the Palestine and the Rohingya issues.
When the floor was opened to NGOs, the Karachi-based World Muslim Congress representative Sardar Amjad Yousf chimed in, expressing support for Bachelet's references to Kashmir and calling for human rights defenders in Kashmir and those who worked with the human rights report to be declared internationally protected persons.
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)
