Journalist Rahul Shivshankar tweets misleading claims on Puttila group members' clash in Puttur
Bengaluru: Journalist Rahul Shivakumar falsely tweeted about the recent assault case between members of the Sangh Parivar in Puttur of Dakshina Kannada district. According to his tweet, a Hindu activist named Santosh was allegedly beaten up while distributing Akshatabefore the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha program. Rahul Shivakumar condemned this incident in his tweet and said, "A Hindu activist who was distributing Ram Mandir 'Akshata' attacked in Karnataka's Puttur. Santosh was attacked last night. He had finished distributing the Akshat and was returning home. Is Hindumesia getting a wide berth because the will to curb it has softened in the face of expedient appeasement politics?” he tweeted.
In fact, Dakshina Kannada District Superintendent of Police Rishyant has stated that there was a commotion between neighbors due to a land dispute. A complaint and counter-complaint have also been registered in this regard. Superintendent of Police Rishyant also requested that the public should not fall prey to any false or misleading messages.
According to the FIR registered at the police station, the complainant, Santosh, who was walking home after stopping his scooter near a park after a meeting on the distribution of Akshata was assaulted. The complaint further alleged that his mother Savita, who came out of the house after hearing the commotion, was also assaulted.
In response to this, a person named Keshav Naik has also filed a complaint that Santosh was trying to tear down the thorn fence around his garden. He said, “When I questioned about this, the accused abused me and threatened to kill me.”
Santhosh, who held a press conference in Puttur on January 17 in this regard, has made a self-declaration that there has been a dispute between our families for several years. Thus, it is clear that this incident took place due to a land dispute and not due to Hindu fear as alleged by journalist Rahul Shivshankar.
Alt News co-founder Muhammad Zubair, who did a fact-finding report on this, retweeted, “Hello @RShivshankar, What do you mean by 'Hindumesia'? Stop fear-mongering.
Both the parties involved in the tussle belonged to Hindutva organisations and neither of them wanted to stop the distribution of the Akshata as a result of ‘Hindumesia’. In reality, the two families involved in the incident have been at loggerheads for years over a civil dispute, and according to Santhosh’s testimony at the press conference, there was an altercation over who would distribute the Akshata. Also, SP Ryshanth stated that the fight between the neighbours had resulted in a civil dispute. A complaint and a counter-complaint were filed in the matter. The SP urged the public not to fall for false news or misleading messages.”
A Hindu activist who was distributing Ram Mandir 'Akshata' attacked in Karnataka's Puttur.
— Rahul Shivshankar (@RShivshankar) January 16, 2024
Santosh was attacked last night. He had finished distributing the Akshat and was returning home.
Is Hindumesia getting a wide berth because the will to curb it has softened in the face…
Hello @RShivshankar, What do you mean by 'Hindumesia'? Stop fear mongering.
— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) January 20, 2024
Both the parties involved in the tussle belonged to Hindutva organisations and neither of them wanted to stop the distribution of the Akshata as a result of ‘Hindumesia’. In reality, the two families…
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)
