Bengaluru College cites High Court order, asks Sikh student to remove Turban
Bengaluru: In the background of the ongoing Hijab row in the state, Times of India reported that the Mount Carmel PU College in the city asked a 17-year-old Amritdhari (Baptized) Sikh girl student to remove her Turban in compliance with the dress code prescribed by the institution.
The College claimed that it was following the interim order released on February 10, by the Karnataka High Court which states, “Pending consideration of all these petitions, we restrain all the students regardless of their religion or faith from wearing saffron shawls (Bhagwa), scarfs, hijab, religious flags or the like within the classroom, until further orders”, in the point 10 of the released order.
According to TOI, the college authorities asked the student to remove her Turban on February 16, stating the HC order. However the student refused to comply, it is learned. The parents of the Sikh student have clarified that the College had been accommodating thus far and had not discriminated against their daughter. They insisted that the state government and High Court needs to issue clarifications about the interim order.
As per the IANS report, the issue began when G. Sriram, deputy director of PU Education, who was inspecting the college during practical exams on Monday, directed two students to remove their hijab as per the court order. This led to outrage among the students and they demanded that the order be applied equally to all students without any exceptions. Parents of college students who were asked to remove hijab by the authorities have demanded that the order of the High Court must be enforced equally on all students.
According to the Times of India Report, a Mount Carmel PU College spokesperson said, "We have had no issues with the girl wearing the turban so far. When the college reopened on February 16, we informed all students about the high court order and we went on with our normal activities. On Tuesday, when the DDPU (North) visited the college he found a group of girls in hijab and told them to come to the office and told them about the high court order. These girls have been demanding now that no girls should be allowed to wear their religious symbols and therefore the Sikh girl also should not be allowed to wear the turban. We spoke to the girl's father and later mailed him. We informed them about the order and told them to abide by it. The father responded that it (the turban) is an integral part of their life. We did not want to interfere, but the other girls have been insisting on uniformity and hence we sent the mail," they said.
The student’s father Gurcharan Singh, who is a senior level employee in a major IT company and has been living in Karnataka for the past 17 years, told the TOI that he told college authorities she would not remove her turban.
"She has never faced any discrimination in the college till now. Now, also they seem to be caught in a piquant situation while responding to the high court order," he told TOI.
He wrote to the college that the high court order did not mention anything about ‘Sikh turban' and it should not be misunderstood. "However, I am also in touch with our community advocates and various organizations," he said, urging the authorities to allow his daughter with her turban to attend classes. After the latest interaction with college authorities, Gurcharan Singh has approached senior advocate HS Phoolka and sought his opinion.
"I am sending my opinion to him that neither the HC order nor government order bars Sikh turban," said Phoolka, when contacted by TOI on Wednesday evening. On Wednesday, the college met the girl's father but the meeting was inconclusive
Gurcharan Singh has apprised Jeetendra Singh, administrator of Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Ulsoor, Bengaluru, about the issue.
The content of the letter revealed by the TOI states, "Asking a Sikh to remove his/her turban is a big insult to a Sikh and entire Sikh community. We also stand by those Muslim girls/women who want to cover their head with scarf/dupatta as a part of their faith and request authorities to allow them to do so as it was already practised in our country and it does not cause any trouble to other people. The colour of the scarf and dastaar (turban) can match the uniform of the institution," he wrote.
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.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
