Will not allow BJP govt to pass anti-conversion bill in Assembly: Siddaramaiah
Belagavi, Dec 10: Senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Friday accused the ruling BJP in Karnataka of trying to divert the attention of the people from real issues by bringing in emotive ones like "Love Jihad, Anti Conversion" with an aim to implementing its "hidden agenda".
Expressing confidence about the Congress coming to power after the 2023 Assembly polls, the Leader of Opposition in the state assembly also said that his party will not allow the anti-conversion bill, which the government is planning to introduce during the ongoing winter session of legislature, to be passed.
"Hundred per cent we will come back (to power after 2023 assembly polls).
During the MLC polls from local authorities constituencies we got about 44,000 out of total 94,000 votes, while BJP got about 37,000, JD(S) got some 10,000," Siddaramaiah said.
Speaking to reporters here, he said it indicates that people want the Congress to come to power.
Further alleging that to divert the attention of the people from real issues, the government was making attempts such as bringing in anti-conversion law, Siddaramaiah said, "is there a need for it? There is no need. If there is forced conversion, file a complaint against those involved and punish them. There is a law already."
Pointing at Hosadurga BJP MLA Goolihatti Shekhar's claim that religious conversions by force or through inducement have become rampant and that his own mother is a victim of such act, he asked, "did he or his mother file a complaint?"
Accusing the BJP of trying to implement its "hidden agenda" by raising emotive issues like "Love Jihad, Anti Conversion", Siddaramaiah in response to a question whether the Congress would scrap the law on coming to power, said, "we will first stop the law from being passed now....let's see (what is to be done on coming to power if it is passed now)."
The proposed anti-conversion bill that is also being opposed by Christian community leaders is expected to come before the Cabinet on Monday and once cleared there it is likely to be introduced in the legislative assembly and council.
The bill is expected to have penal provisions, and may also insist that the persons who wish to convert to another faith file an application before the Deputy Commissioner two months prior.
Also, the person who wishes to convert is likely to lose the religion of his or her origin and facilities or benefits attached with it, including reservations; however, one is likely to receive the benefits entitled to, in the religion he or she converts to.
Meanwhile defending the proposed anti-conversion bill, BJP national General Secretary and MLA C T Ravi said, religious conversion should not become the mode to garner votes, as he called on Congress leaders including Siddaramaiah to read history and try to know about Mahatma Gandhi's views on it.
Claiming that Mahatma Gandhi too had opposed religious conversion, he said, "the Congress which claims that they follow Gandhi's and not Godse's Hindutva, let them read history and see what Gandhi had to say about conversion, Siddaramaiah please read history once."
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)
