Amit Panghal wins gold medal in boxing at Asian Championships
Bangkok: Indian boxer Amit Panghal (52kg) picked up his second successive gold medal of the year, claiming the top honours in the Asian Championships here Friday.
Panghal, who won the Asian Games gold medal last year, defeated Korea's Kim Inkyu Korea in a unanimous decision. He came into the tournament on the back of a gold at the Strandja Memorial Tournament in February.
This was his maiden international competition since moving up to 52kg from 49kg earlier this year.
However, national champion Deepak Singh (49kg) had to settle for a silver after going down in a split verdict to Nodirjon Mirzahmedov of Uzbekistan.
India have challenged the verdict under the Bout Review System and a decision is awaited on it. Up against a lanky opponent, who was willing to play the waiting game, Panghal started in his usual aggressive style.
The strategy of stumping rivals with relentless attacks paid off against Inkyu and the Korean simply had no answer to Panghal's aggression.
The Indian managed to corner his rival quite often and his solid defences thwarted the feeble attempts at connecting by Inkyu. Earlier, Deepak put up a gutsy performance that failed to find favour with the judges.
It was a bout in which both the boxers were mostly looking to counter-attack. Deepak's focus was getting his straight punches across, while Mirzahmedov looked to connect right hooks occasionally.
The Indian was a clear winner in the opening round but Mirzahmedov came back strongly in the second.
The Uzbek turned a shade defensive in the last three minutes, which gave Deepak a chance to assert himself. However, the final outcome was in favour of the Uzbek, much to the surprise of the Indian camp which immediately sought a review of the decision.
The tournament has a Bout Review Process in place for any contentious decisions. Teams have been handed yellow cards at the beginning of their respective bouts. Coaches get a minute after the fight to appeal against a decision.
A slow motion footage of the bout is used for reviews by an observer to decide the merits of the appeal.
In case the decision does not favour the team concerned, the national federation has to pay USD 1,000 as penalty.
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.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
