Prannoy wins decisive match against Denmark to steer India to historic Thomas Cup final
Bangkok, May 13: HS Prannoy produced a lion-hearted effort in the decisive fifth match as the Indian men's badminton team scripted history by reaching the title clash of the Thomas Cup Final for the first time ever with a 3-2 victory over Denmark in an edge-of-the-seat semifinal, here.
Indian team, which never went past the semifinals after 1979, showed tremendous fighting spirit as it came from a match down to outwit the 2016 champions.
While world championships silver medallist Kidambi Srikanth and world number 8 doubles pair of Satwiksairaj Rankireddy and Chirag Shetty kept India in the hunt, it was once again left to HS Prannoy to take the team home when the tie was locked 2-2.
Up against world number 13 Rasmus Gemke, Prannoy suffered an ankle injury after slipping on the front court while going for a return but the Indian continued after taking a medical timeout.
He looked in pain and his on-court movement also looked restricted but despite all odds, he produced a sensational performance to come up trumps 13-21 21-9 21-12 to etch India's name in the history books.
India will now take on 14-time champions Indonesia, the most successful team in the history. Indonesia edged out Japan 3-2 in their semifinal.
It was a creditable performance from the Indian team, which on Thursday had snapped a 43-year long wait by reaching the semifinals with a 3-2 win over five-time champions Malaysia, a feat last achieved in 1979.
It was always going to be an uphill task for India to tame the formidable Denmark, which had become the first European country in history to secure the title in 2016.
A lot rode on world championship bronze medallist Lakshya Sen, given his recent win over Viktor Axelsen at the German Open Super 300 but he couldn't replicate his performance as the world number one scripted a comfortable 13-21 13-21 win to hand Denmark a 1-0 lead.
Denmark decided to split their world number 9 pair of Kim Astrup and Anders Skaarup Rasmussen into two halves with Astrup partnering Mathias Christiansen in the first doubles.
However, Rankireddy and Shetty dished out a gritty performance, holding their nerves in the final stages to beat Astrup and Christiansen 21-18 21-23 22-20 to bring India back in the contest.
The Indian pair faced five match points -- two in the second game and three in third game -- before converting one to bring joy back to the Indian camp.
With the tie locked 1-1, world number 11 Srikanth and world number 3 Anders Antonsen engaged in a battle of supremacy in the second singles with the former coming out on top with a gritty 21-18 12-21 21-15 result to give India a 2-1 lead.
India's second doubles combination of Krishna Prasad Garaga and Vishnuvardhan Goud Panjala, however, was no match for Anders Skaarup Rasmussen and Frederik Sogaard, losing 14-21 13-21 as the tie was tentatively posed at 2-2 after the fourth match.
The experienced Prannoy then lost the opening game but, quite incredibly, led 11-1 in the second game, despite injury. He depended more on his attack to gather points even as Gemke failed to create pressure on the Indian.
Prannoy dominated the front court and soon roared back into contest with Gemke committing too many errors.
Prannoy, ranked 23rd, stamped his authority with his trademark smashes as Gemke's defence lay in tatters. The Indian was up 11-4 up at the interval and continued to dominate the proceedings.
With the Impact Arena reberberating with chants of "HSP", Prannoy grabbed nine match points with a straight down the line smash and sealed it on the second opportunity as his teammates huddled together in celebration.
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)
