Puri temple stampede exposes Odisha govt's incompetence in ensuring peaceful Rath Yatra: Patnaik
_vb_66.jpeg)
Puri (PTI): BJD president Naveen Patnaik on Sunday claimed that the stampede near Gundicha Temple in Odisha’s Puri exposed the state government’s glaring incompetence in ensuring a peaceful Rath Yatra for devotees.
At least three persons were killed and around 50 others injured in the stampede near the temple in the early hours of Sunday, a senior official said.
“I extend my heartfelt condolences to the families of the three devotees who have lost their lives in the tragic stampede at Saradhabali, #Puri and I pray to Mahaprabhu Jagannatha for the swift recovery of the devotees injured in this devastating incident,” Patnaik said in a post on X.
“Today’s stampede, occurring just a day after the abysmal failure of crowd management during the #RathYatra that left hundreds injured, exposes the government’s glaring incompetence in ensuring a peaceful festival for devotees,” the Leader of Opposition in Odisha assembly said.
The incident took place around 4 am when hundreds of devotees gathered near the temple to witness Rath Yatra festivities, Puri District Collector Siddharth S Swain said.
“Eyewitnesses report that the initial response to this horrific tragedy came from the devotees’ relatives, with no government machinery present to manage the surging crowds, highlighting a shocking lapse in duty,” Patnaik alleged.
Chaos ensued after two trucks carrying materials for rituals reportedly entered the crowded spot near the chariots of Lord Jagannath and his sibling deities, officials said.
“While I refrain from accusing the government of criminal negligence, their blatant callousness has undeniably contributed to this tragedy. I urge the government to implement urgent corrective measures to ensure the smooth conduct of Adapa Bije, Bahuda, Suna Besha, and other key #RathYatra rituals,” Patnaik, a five-term chief minister, added.
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.
Mount Carmel College dress code faces criticism from students, sparks debate
Bengaluru: A campaign opposing the dress code at Mount Carmel College has led to discussions over whether such regulations amount to moral policing and restrict students’ freedom of expression.
The campaign, shared on Instagram by Collective Bangalore, referred to the code as “new”. The college principal said the rules have existed for years, and the guidelines bar students from wearing flip-flops, cargo pants, round or V-neck T-shirts and sporting coloured hair. Male students are also required to maintain short and well-groomed hair.
Students have raised concerns not only about the dress code but also about restrictions on movement within the campus and the cancellation of student elections. Three students told Metrolife that they faced uncomfortable checks at the college gate. A first-year female student said she was once sent home for wearing pants with pockets and, on another occasion, for a sleeveless blouse despite a shirt worn over it. A male student said the rules created “unwanted fear among girls” and added that he has been repeatedly asked to cut his long hair.
Opinions from faculty and administrators across other institutions remain divided. Joshua Samuel, principal of Baldwin Methodist College, said dress codes ensure decency and equality. He added that his students generally accept them. Y C Kamala, associate professor at Government First Grade College, Malleswaram, said a dress code was “necessary” during college hours to keep the focus on academics. She also acknowledged that the idea of “decency” is subjective.
Venugopal K R, former principal of University Visvesvaraya College of Engineering, supporting uniforms said that they help reduce visible disparities among students from different economic backgrounds. He compared moderate attire in classrooms to lab coats, which he said promote discipline and concentration.
In contrast, S Japhet, former vice-chancellor of Bengaluru Central University, opposed mandatory dress codes, particularly in women’s colleges. He said dress is “a form of self-expression.” He also argued that restrictions in the name of decency amount to moral policing. According to him such decision, should be made in consultation with students, parents and alumni.
Some academics described dress codes as a form of surveillance. A journalism professor said rules rooted in vague ideas of decency often lead to micromanagement, while Rolla Das, assistant professor at a private university, said arbitrary restrictions tend to reinforce veiled patriarchy and have a greater impact on students from marginalised groups.
Drawing parallels with the hijab ban controversy, critics of strict dress codes have warned that such rules could infringe on fundamental freedoms. Supporters of the dress code argue that the step encourage discipline, equality and academic focus.
