Controversy in Bhatkal over construction of Tipu Gate, Temple’s Mahadwara; Several booked
Just over a month after a major controversy centered around the name of TMC to be displayed in Urdu language on the building took place in Bhatkal, the town once again faced a similar situation of a triple threat face-off between two communities and local administration.
The controversy erupted when an announcement was made regarding the inauguration of “Tipu Gate”, named after Mysore ruler and freedom fighter Tipu Sultan in the town. The foundation stone laying ceremony of the gate was scheduled on Friday, September 16.
Minutes before the ceremony, the local police arrived at the spot and intervened leading to a verbal altercation between people, and the top officials of local police and the Town Municipal Council.
Members of the group that had planned to install the Tipu Gate argued that another gate (Mahadwara) was being constructed by a Nischal Makki temple committee, a few hundred meters away from the spot of where the Tipu Gate was being installed, without authorization and permission from the local administration and the administration was not intervening into their affair.
The group urged the cops to stop the construction of gate by the temple committee adding that they would stop the installation of Tipu Gate if the administration would cap other illegal constructions in the vicinity, hinting at the temple gate.
Police team led by Bhatkal Town Inspector Diwakar and TMC Officials led by Chief Officer Suresh reached the temple site leading to further altercations between the temple committee and officials of administration.
Member of the temple committee Krishna Naik verbally took on officials and dared them to seal the construction site. He threatened that the law and order would be compromised in the region if the administration was to interfere in the construction of the Mahadwara.
While those wanting to set up Tipu Gate claimed that the construction site of the temple gate falls under 100 meters range of an archeological site, meaning construction of any establishment was illegal on the site, the temple committee added that they had sought permission from Bhatkal TMC for the construction but their application went unanswered despite several reminders.
After a tense few hours, the police dispersed the two groups from the two sites and sealed both spots. They also lodged an FIR based on a complaint filed by the TMC Chief Officer. From the Tipu Gate group the police have booked Bhatkal Muslim Youth Federation (BMYF) President Azizur Rahman, advocate and activist Taimur Gawai and social worker Sami.
Krishna Naik, who is also the President of Namdhari Samaj, on the hand added that the Mahadwara’s construction was their religious right and that nobody could take it away from them.
The cops later filed the FIR against the contractor of the Mahadwara and have named the temple committee in the FIR without naming any individual.
BJP MLA from Bhatkal-Honnavar Constituency also came out all guns blazing at the local socio-political organization Majlis-e-Islah wa Tanzeem adding that it had deliberately stalled the proceedings of the construction site at the temple and that it was actively involved in hampering the peace and harmony in town. He also added that Tanzeem was using councilors backed by them in the TMC to create controversy.
He also dared the administration to stop the construction work and assured the people of extending all support for the timely construction of Mahadwara.
Bhatkal TMC President Parvez Kashimji defended the council adding that it was purely a legal matter and the officials have reacted legally. He also clarified that the Tanzeem or any councillor had no involvement in the matter.
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)
