Is 'second demonetisation' cover-up of wrong decision made earlier, asks Kharge
New Delhi (PTI): Opposition leaders on Saturday hit out at the government after the RBI announced the withdrawal of Rs 2,000 currency notes from circulation, with Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge asking if the "second demonetisation" is an effort to cover up the wrong decision made earlier.
He also called for an impartial probe into the entire demonetisation episode.
In a surprise move, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Friday announced the withdrawal of Rs 2,000 currency notes from circulation but gave the public time till September 30 to either deposit such notes in accounts or exchange them at banks.
It said it had asked banks to stop issuing Rs 2,000 notes with immediate effect.
In a tweet in Hindi, Kharge said, "You inflicted a deep wound on the economy with the first demonetisation. Due to this, the entire unorganised sector was destroyed, MSMEs were closed down and crores of jobs were lost."
"Now, the 'second demonetisation' of ?2000 note... Is this a cover-up of a wrong decision? Only an unbiased investigation will reveal the truth of the matter," the Congress chief said.
Independent Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal also attacked the Centre over the decision and recalled Prime Minister Narendra Modi's remarks at the time of the 2016 demonetisation that the magnitude of cash in circulation is directly linked to the level of corruption.
He said, "?2000 notes scrapped. PM to Nation: November 8, 2016, 'The magnitude of cash in circulation is directly linked to the level of corruption'. Cash in circulation: 2016 (17.7 lakh crores); 2022 (30.18 lakh crores). So: Corruption increased! What say you PM ji?"
Sibal was a Union minister during UPA 1 and 2 and had quit the Congress in May last year. He was elected to Rajya Sabha as an Independent member with the Samajwadi Party's support.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra said, "No civilised nation puts its people under constant fear of cash turning to toilet paper. Why should we stress about our wallets vaporising every few years?"
"BJP & Modiji's distractions cut no ice. You lost Karnataka. You will lose more states. Also you cannot save Adani," she said.
Reacting to the development, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi posed five questions to Modi.
"Five questions to Top Economist PM Modi:@PMOIndia. 1. Why did you introduce the 2000 note in the first place? 2. Can we expect 500 note to be withdrawn soon? 3. 70 crore Indians don't have a smart phone, how do they do digital payment?
"4. What is the role of Bill Gates owned Better Than Cash Alliance in making you do Demo 1.0 and 2.0? 5. Is NPCI being hacked by Chinese hackers? If so, what will happen to payements when war happens," he asked.
A host of Congress leaders also slammed the PM over the move.
In a tweet, Congress general secretary organisation K C Venugopal said, "I recollect the prescient words of our former PM Dr. Manmohan Singh, who called demonetisation an act of 'organised loot and legalised plunder' and its implementation was a 'monumental management failure'."
The scrapping of the Rs 2000 note is yet another proof that the Modi government put in zero thought before taking the fateful decision of November 8, 2016 that caused widespread suffering among the poor and middle classes, he said.
"This withdrawal shows they have no foresight and only take shock-and-awe decisions for their political posturing," he said.
Congress' media and publicity department head Pawan Khera took a swipe at Modi, saying the one who could not use the note printed by himself even for seven years asks what the country did in 70 years.
Congress MP Manish Tewari said the RBI's logic behind the withdrawal of Rs 2,000 rupee notes was contrary to the answer given by the Finance Ministry to his Parliament Question on November 18, 2019.
He said, "31st March 2017. Total Currency in Circulation 13.10 Lakh Crores, 500/2000 Rupee notes 9.5 Lakh Crores. 31st March 2018 :Total Currency in Circulation 18 Lakh Crores. 500/2000 Rupee notes 14.46 Lakh Crores-80% of Total Currency in Circulation. 31st March 2019 - Currency in Circulation 21.1 Lakh Crores. 500/2000 Re Notes 17.34 Lakh Crores. 82.2 % of Total currency in Circulation."
Tewari said the question is will Rs 2,000 notes continue to be legal tender after September 30 or not.
The RBI needs to clarify that, he added.
The Rs 2,000 denomination banknote was introduced in November 2016, primarily to meet the currency requirement of the economy in an expeditious manner after the withdrawal of legal tender status of all Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 banknotes in circulation at that time.
The RBI said it has also been observed that Rs 2,000 denomination note is not commonly used for transactions. Further, the stock of banknotes in other denominations continues to be adequate to meet the currency requirement of the public.
"In view of the above, and in pursuance of the 'Clean Note Policy' of the Reserve Bank of India, it has been decided to withdraw the Rs 2,000 denomination bank notes from circulation," it said.
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)
