Where is Priyanka Gandhi? Her voter lynched in Mangaluru, still no response
A voter from Wayanad, the very constituency that elected Priyanka Gandhi to the Lok Sabha with a record margin of over four lakh votes, has been brutally murdered in Mangaluru. Yet, there has been no statement, no visit, and no visible intervention from the newly elected Member of Parliament.
Ashraf, a mentally ill man from Wayanad, was reportedly lynched by a mob of Hindutva activists on the outskirts of Mangaluru. Eyewitness accounts suggest that he was chased and beaten mercilessly, despite some locals pleading with the attackers to stop. However, the police allegedly attempted to suppress the nature of the crime, initially dismissing it as a case of drunkenness or an accident. Bruises on Ashraf’s body were ignored, and for two days, the case was handled with silence and negligence.
It was only due to consistent media reporting and the voices of political and social leaders that the truth began to emerge. It is now widely believed that around 30 individuals were involved in the brutal assault on Ashraf. The attempt to hush up the murder has drawn serious questions about the functioning and intention of the police.
Adding to the controversy, Karnataka Home Minister Dr G Parameshwar claimed that the attack happened because Ashraf allegedly shouted “Pakistan Zindabad.” This statement has further derailed the investigation, critics say. It has triggered outrage across Karnataka, with many asking how the Home Minister had access to information about such a slogan but did not know the basic fact that Ashraf was mentally unwell.
Even more disturbing is the silence of other senior leaders. The District In-charge Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao's reference to Ashraf as someone from a “different community” has also sparked public anger. Citizens are asking how a Muslim man from Wayanad can be referred to as a non-Muslim. The statement has only added to the confusion and suspicion around the case.
Now, Ashraf’s family has taken his body back to Wayanad. And the questions remain unanswered: Will Priyanka Gandhi visit Ashraf’s home? Will she express solidarity with his grieving family? Will she demand that the Karnataka government take strict action against the killers?
The voters of Wayanad are watching. Will Priyanka Gandhi call Karnataka’s Home Minister and question him about his controversial statement? A statement that mirrored the claims made by the very people accused in the case? Since when did statements made by the accused become the basis of public messaging in a murder case?
Will the Wayanad MP hold the Congress government in Karnataka accountable for failing to act promptly? Will she ask why neither the Chief Minister nor the Deputy Chief Minister has spoken on the matter?
The Congress came to power in Karnataka promising justice, equality, and safety for all communities. Karnataka’s Muslim voters, especially, placed their faith in the Congress by turning away not just from the BJP but also from the JDS. What are they being given in return?
At a time when Priyanka Gandhi should have been standing with her constituents and in Parliament against the Waqf Amendment Bill, she was reportedly abroad during the passing of the Waqf Amendment Bill. Many now wonder if this absence is a convenient escape from politically sensitive issues.
If she is back, it is time for her to act. The family of Ashraf, a man from her own constituency, deserves justice. Every single accused in this lynching case—from those who carried out the violence to those who orchestrated it—must face the maximum punishment under the law.
If not, it will not just be Ashraf’s family, but the entire electorate of Wayanad that will be left questioning: why did Priyanka Gandhi contest from their constituency where the party ticket was to be given to a Muslim party worker?
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)
