Strained relation with coach Shastri? All speculations, says Sourav Ganguly
Kolkata: BCCI President Sourav Ganguly on Friday rubbished, as pure speculation, allegations that he would be vindictive towards chief coach Ravi Shastri, saying that performance alone will be the parameter of judging individuals during his tenure.
Shastri and Ganguly had a public fallout in 2016 when the former reapplied for coach's job and the latter was a part of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC), which selected Anil Kumble for the position.
In 2017, Shastri got back the job after Kumble resigned following his much-publicised difference of opinion with skipper Virat Kohli. During 'India Today Conclave (East)' on Friday, Ganguly was asked about conjecture that he has an axe to grind with Shastri because of past differences.
"That's why these are called speculations. I don't have an answer to these questions," said Ganguly, dismissing the supposition. For Ganguly, it all boils down to performance on the field.
"You perform and you continue, you don't, someone else takes over. That was also the case when I played," he asserted. "There will be talks, leaks, rumours but concentration should be on what happens on 22 yards," he said.
He then cited examples of Virat Kohli, who has 70 international hundreds and Sachin Tendulkar (100 tons) to make his point. "Life is about performance and nothing can substitute that," he said.
As he stated during his first press interaction after taking over, Ganguly reiterated that, "Kohli remains the most important man in Indian cricket as he leads the team on the field."
"Virat is a fantastic role model as to how he conducts himself on and off the field. He (Kohli) will get all the support required to succeed. Virat, Ravi everyone will get everything required. But at the end of the day, we will demand performance," he said.
After the 2011 World Cup triumph, the Indian team faltered at the semifinal and final hurdle of most ICC tournaments save the 2013 Champions Trophy.
"It's not an ability issue but mind issue. They need to cross the mental barrier in big games," he said. Talking about the 2020 World T20, the former skipper has one piece of advice for his men out there. "T20 is about playing fearless cricket with freedom. Don't walk out there in the middle, playing for your place in the team," he said.
Ganguly has made a smooth transition from a player to an administrator. He also battled conflict of interest charge for his multiple commitments. Ganguly said the clause is coming in the way of getting former cricketers on board for administrative roles.
"I am unable to get ex-cricketers on board because of Conflict of Interest. (We need to deal with) Conflict of Interest with a lot of common sense. Someone like Sachin had to leave.
"It's got to be practical. Conflict of interest should apply only to administrators and cricketers should be left out of it," he said.
Home Minister Amit Shah's son Jay Shah is the secretary and the BCCI president wants his colleague to be "judged independently".
"Jay Shah has won an election. He should be judged independently. He is adjustable. His father is a politician but we should judge him personally," Ganguly said.
Ganguly made it clear that there has been no political interference in the BCCI matters but conceded that "influential people will be involved in the running of the game".
"Late Arun Jaitley ji was obsessed with the game but never held a post in BCCI. But he is held in high esteem in Delhi cricket," he recollected.
Talking about Delhi cricket and the innumerable allegations of corruption, including in the selection of the current Ranji squad, Ganguly sought to steer clear by saying that it was the state association's internal matter at this point.
"Despite all that we hear, the current Indian team has Virat Kohli, Shikhar Dhawan, Ishant Sharma, Rishabh Pant. I don't know what happens but they keep producing world class players.
"The state associations are independent and have their own elected body. Running an association is not easy. Very strong personality is needed," he said.
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)
