Savarkar was first proponent of two-nation theory: Bhupesh Baghel
Raipur, May 27: Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel Monday claimed Hindu Mahasabha leader Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had first sown the seed of the two-nation theory which was later taken forward by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the late founder of Pakistan.
The Congress leader claimed efforts are being made to change Jawaharlal Nehru's idea of India and said the first Prime Minister started nuclear and space programmes and oversaw building of world-class institutions.
Addressing Congress leaders and workers at a function on Nehru's 55th death anniversary organised at the party's state headquarters 'Rajiv Bhawan' here, Baghel paid rich tribute to the first prime minister of the country and gave an account of works done by him.
"Savarkar, who was a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, had sown the seed of division of the country which was later implemented by Muhammad Ali Jinnah," he said.
Later, talking to reporters on the sidelines of the programme, Baghel said, "It is a historical fact that in Hindu Mahasabha, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had proposed that Hindustan should be independent as two nations.
"He had put forth the demand of two nations on religious ground and Muhammad Ali Jinnah implemented it. It is a fact and no one can prove it wrong."
Speaking at the function, Baghel said, "As soon as Nehru ji got the responsibility (of PM), he started AIIMS, nuclear programme, space programme to build the nation.
"Bhilai Steel Plant set up in our state is an example of his farsightedness to eliminate hunger and unemployment."
Baghel, who is also state Congress president, said Nehru was a true democrat.
"In a democratic system, the people's biggest strength is to ask questions. Nehru ji was its supporter but today you can't question the Prime Minister," the CM said in an apparent reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
"Today, efforts are being made to change Nehru's India. Today, where we stand, the biggest credit for it goes to Nehru," Baghel added.
"When we read his 'Discovery of India', we get astonished because his book provides wealth of information on history, geography, arts and culture.
"Nehru ji had written that the bigotry in any manner is harmful for the country," Baghel said.
He said the legendary leader was against obscurantism and narrow nationalism.
"Nehru ji never projected hollow and irrelevant things. He believed in nationalism but not in narrow nationalism," the Chief Minister said.
Reacting to his remarks, former Chief Minister and BJP vice-president Raman Singh said Baghel should re-read history to gain a better understanding of the subject.
"He (Baghel) should read history once again. He should have better understanding of history. Debate on division and background of division of the country is not required today.
"He should not speak more with limited knowledge, Singh told reporters when asked about his successor's remarks.
Singh said, "The comments came as a result of shock over his party's debacle in the Lok Sabha polls."
Of the 11 Lok Sabha seats in the state, the BJP has won nine, while the Congress got just two.
The Congress came to power in Chhattisgarh in December last after a massive victory in the assembly polls, ending the 15-year-old rule of the BJP.
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)
