What promises have you fulfilled, Sonia asks Modi
Vijayapura, May 8: Have you fulfilled any one of the promises made to the people of the country four years ago? What have you done for farmers, youth, women, children and aged people in these four years, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Addressing a rally at Babaleshwar in the district on Tuesday, Sonia Gandhi asked Modi about his works for the welfare of farmers, youth, middle class people, women, children, backward classes, dalits and minorities of the country. Why did you appoint Lok Pal even after four years for containing corruption? What model are you following to control corruption? Is it the model of those who sit beside you at the stage or the model of your close friend’s son, she questioned.
Making the country Congress-free is the main job for Modi as the Prime Minister. He is a good speaker and artiste. If he could feed the bellies of the poor through his good speeches, let him do such speeches more. He should understand that just speeches would not fill the bellies. People need have food, medicine in hospitals to be healthy, women should be empowered, youth should get jobs and farmers should get facilities. All these would not come from just speeches. The prices of essential commodities were sky rocketing. Poor and middle class people have been facing the problem. Unable to identify this, Modi government has been increasing the prices of petroleum products, she said.
Modi has cultivated a habit of lying. He has taken the history of the country lightly. He has been using the names of great personalities and soldiers of the country for his political gains. All such acts would not bring good to a Prime Minister. Have you seen such a Prime Minister who keeps silent when he confront major issues and speak when it is not necessary, she asked.
The steps taken by Siddaramaiah-led government for the welfare of all sections of the society are really commendable. This has placed the Karnataka in number one position in the country. Siddaramaiah government has implemented various pro-people programmes like Anna Bhagya, Krishi Bhagya, Krishi Yantra Dhare, Indira canteen and others. But the BJP leaders have been opposing such programmes. When the Congress introduced MNREGS to ensure jobs to the people, BJP had opposed it. When Chief Minister Siddaramaiah sought Prime Minister Modi’s appointment to apprise him of the drought situation and place a demand for compensation for farmers, Modi did not give time to meet Siddaramaiah and thus insulted the farmers and their families. But for BJP ruling states, the Modi government has granted thousands of crores. Is it the real ‘Sab ka saath, sab ka vikas’, Sonia asked.
Siddaramaiah has waived of loans of over 22 lakh farmers and implemented various programmes for farmers. Vijayapura is the land of great saints, personalities and the centre of Basava philosophy which advocated equality and brotherhood. But Narendra Modi has given new promises and sown the seeds of hatred. But the Congress would not allow the BJP to make it success, she added.
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)
