1st ODI: Arshdeep, Avesh skittle South Africa out for 116
Johannesburg (PTI): Arshdeep Singh bowled a magical spell before ending with a five-wicket haul while Avesh Khan looked menacingly quick as India's fringe pacers rattled South Africa for a paltry 116 in the first ODI here on Sunday.
Playing their first 50 over game post the World Cup final, it seemed that Arshdeep (5/37 in 10 overs) and Avesh (4/27 in 8 overs) had picked up a cue from their seniors Mohammed Shami and Jasprit Bumrah as a quality Proteas batting line-up were made to look like novices on a track that offered a lot of help.
It was Arshdeep's first five-wicket haul in ODIs and the Punjab left-armer would certainly feel good having drawn a lot of flak for his inconsistency in the shortest format.
In their last encounter at Kolkata's Eden Gardens, South Africa were bowled out for 83 under lights on a slow deck but never would have Aiden Markram envisaged that he and his men would be bullied at the 'Bull Ring' which has been a safe haven for them in white ball cricket. Their innings lasted only 27.3 overs.
Only three players-- skipper KL Rahul, wrist spinner Kuldeep Yadav and middle-order batter Shreyas Iyer, who played the World Cup final are a part of this current playing eleven, and India's back-up pacers gave a good account of themselves.
The two Indian pacers pitched it up and ensured that most of the South African batters stayed rooted to the crease and both in fact were on hat-tricks with dismissals off successive deliveries.
Arshdeep would get more credit as he blew away the top-order within the first Powerplay with four wickets and then left it to Avesh, who bowled fast and full, hurrying the batters for pace.
In between, Avesh would slip in the occasional short ball for the tail-enders, who were in two minds whether to go on the front-foot or back-foot.
It started with Reeza Hendricks (0), who dragged a delivery that was angled across the right-hander back onto the stumps and the dangerous Rassie van de Dussen (0) must have expected an away-going one but got one that darted back from middle-stump.
Tony de Zorzi (28 off 22 balls), chanced his arms and Mukesh Kumar (0/35 in 6 overs), who had an off-day, went for a few before Arshdeep showed his variation by digging one short and the ball ballooned for skipper Rahul to complete an easy catch.
However the wicket that completely broke the home team's back was Heinrich Klaasen's (6) dismissal, which would have even made the great Wasim Akram proud.
Arshdeep bowled one slightly back of length but flicked his wrists in a manner that it turned into a vicious in-dipper that clipped the leg stump bail, leaving the right-hander in complete daze.
The end of Powerplay didn't end Proteas' woes as skipper Markram played on, completely beaten for pace. David Miller (2) also fell prey to relentless pressure to a delivery pitched on drivable length while Wiaan Mulder and Keshav Maharaj found the speed of deliveries too hot to handle.
It was Andile Phehlukwayo, whose 33, coming in at No. 8, took the home team past 100-run mark before Arshdeep, in his second spell, complete his five-for.
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)
