Indian-American presidential aspirant Vivek Ramaswamy attacked by rivals over Ukraine
Washington (PTI): Indian-American Republican presidential aspirant Vivek Ramaswamy has infuriated his Republican primary rivals when he said that he will not back Ukraine in its war against Russia, aligning himself with former president Donald Trump who wants to abandon critical support of Kyiv.
"We have to level with the American people on this issue," the 38-year-old multimillionaire biotech entrepreneur said.
"Just because (Russian President Vladimir) Putin is an evil dictator does not mean that Ukraine is good. This is a country that has banned 11 opposition parties, that has actually...," Ramaswamy said during the second Republican presidential primary at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, on Wednesday.
Ramaswamy's isolationist tilt drew major blowback from former vice president Mike Pence, former governor of New Jersey Chris Christie and former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley.
Haley, who is also of Indian origin, was the first to jump in and oppose such a move by Ramaswamy.
"A win for Russia is a win for China," she said.
Ramaswamy disagreed.
"China is the real enemy. We are driving Russia further into China's arms. We need a reasonable peace plan to end this, this is a country whose president just last week was hailing a Nazi in his own ranks," he said.
Pence joined Haley in slamming Ramaswamy for his comments.
"Vivek, if you let Putin have Ukraine, that's a green light to China to take Taiwan. Peace comes through strength," he said. "We need a reasonable plan to peace. We need a reasonable plan to peace," Ramaswamy responded.
Christie too slammed Ramaswamy.
"The Chinese are paying for the Russian war in Ukraine. The Iranians are supplying more sophisticated weapons, and so are the North Koreans now as well, with the encouragement of the Chinese," he said.
"The naivete on this stage from some of these folks is extraordinary," Christie said.
"Look, I understand people want to go and talk to Putin. Guess what? So did George W. Bush. So did Barack Obama. So did Donald Trump. And so did Joe Biden, when he said a small invasion wouldn't be so bad. Every one of them has been wrong," he said.
"The fact of the matter is, we need to say right now that the Chinese-Russian alliance is something we have to fight against. And we are not going to solve it by going over and cuddling up to Vladimir Putin. Look, Donald Trump said Vladimir Putin was brilliant and a great leader. This is the person who is murdering people in his own country. And now, not having enough blood, he's now going to Ukraine to murder innocent civilians and kidnap 20,000 children," he said.
"And let me tell you, if you think that's where it's going to stop, if we give him any of Ukraine, next will be Poland," Christie said.
In an email to his supporters after the debate, Ramaswamy said that he was once again the number one target of his fellow Republican candidates.
"Nikki Haley said she felt "dumber" when I spoke. Tim Scott came after my business record. Ron DeSantis' Super PAC wouldn't stop tweeting about me. While they launched their attacks on my platform last night, I focused on the Truth," 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)
