Yogi govt to act against madrasas, where national anthem wasn't sung

Agencies
August 16, 2017

Lucknow, Aug 16: The Uttar Pradesh government is contemplating stern action against 'madrasas' (Islamic Seminaries), where the national anthem was not sung during the Independence Day celebrations on Tuesday in defiance of its directives.

According to the sources here on Tuesday, the government has taken a strong view of the reports that national anthem had not been sung at many 'madrasas', especially those owing allegiance to the Barelvi school of Islamic thought.

''We have received complaints from various quarters that national anthem was not sung at several madrasas,'' said a senior official of the education department here.

The education department would also conduct a probe into the complaints, he said.

''We have asked the complainants to furnish proof in support of their allegation,'' the official said adding that stern action would be taken against the erring madrasas.

Sources said that Tricolour was unfurled at the madrasas but the students did not sing the national anthem despite being made mandatory by the Yogi Adityanath government.

Reports said that instead of the national anthem, the students of the 'madrasas' sang 'sare Jahan seAchha Hindostan Hamara', penned by the famous Urdu poet Mohammed Iqbal.

The managers of these madrasas also did not conduct video recording of the I-Day celebrations, which had also been made mandatory by the state government.

The managers defended their decision not to sing national anthem saying that some of the lines in it were not in accordance with the tenets of Islam.

The clerics owing allegiance to the Barelvi sect had earlier made it clear that neither National Anthem nor ‘Vande Mataram’ would be sung in the ‘Madarsas’ affiliated with them.

The state government had, in a circular issued to all the 'madrasas', directed them to unfurl the Tricolour followed by the recital of the national anthem and national song. The government also directed the ‘madarsas’ to conduct videography of the entire program and submit the video and pictures to the concerned government official.

Comments

Hot & Fair
 - 
Thursday, 17 Aug 2017

He in imposing his thought by force. The constitution does not allow anyone to force to do so (to sing).

The meanings in those songs are against islamic teachings which is contracdicting Oneness of God.

Islam forbids to worship the concept of  multiple God. This type of worship is UNFORGIVABLE BIGGEST SIN.

 

Unfortunately Hindus also say 1God but worshipping crores of Gods, which does not make any sense.

Islam condemns such imposition on Muslims by any one,  whoever tries to impose his own ideas.

Muslims will not allow anyone to force them to follow their faiths. They will not succeed in doing it.  If trying to impose they have to PAY DEARLY.

 

 

 

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 2,2020

Lucknow, Jul 2: Senior BJP leader Uma Bharti Thursday appeared in person before a special court here conducting trial in the 1992 Babri mosque demolition case.      

The special CBI court is currently recording the statements of 32 accused under CrPC section 313 (court's power to examine the accused), a stage in the trial that follows the examination of prosecution witnesses.

The 61-year-old saffron clad BJP leader is the 19th accused to depose before the court in the over 27-year-old case. Thirteen other alleged accused, including former deputy prime minister LK Advani and senior BJP leaders MM Joshi and Kalyan Singh are yet to be examined at this stage. Their lawyers have indicated to the CBI court that they prefer to appear through video conferencing. 

The mosque in Ayodhya was demolished in December 1992 by 'kar sevaks' who claimed that an ancient Ram temple had stood on the same site. The CBI court is conducting day-to-day hearings to complete the trial by August 31, as directed by the Supreme Court.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 16,2020

New Delhi, Jan 16: In trouble brewing for the Gautam Adani-led M/S Adani Enterprises, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday said that it has registered a case against former officials of the National Co-operative Consumer Federation (NCCF) and others over alleged irregularities in supply of coal to the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (APGENCO) in 2010.

The CBI in its FIR has named Virendra Singh, the then Chairman of the NCCF, G P Gupta, the then MD of the NCCF, S C Singhal, the then Senior Advisor of NCCF, Adani Enterprises Ltd and other unknown public servants and others for criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct by public servants.

According to CBI, the case was filed on Wednesday after the preliminary enquiry revealed the crime by the officials named in the FIR and the Adani Enterprises was found to be true.

The FIR alleged that on June 26, 2010, APGENCO floated a tender enquiry for supply of six lakh metric tonnes of imported coal "on free on rail destination" basis to Dr Narla Tata Rao Thermal Station (NTTPS), Vijaywada and Rayalasaleema Thermal Power Plant (RTTP), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh/RTPP via Kakinada-Vizag-Chennai-Krishnapatnam or any other ports

The same was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, APGENCO to seven PSUs -- PEC Limited, STC Limited, MSTC Limited, NCCF, MMTC, Coal India Limited and SCCL Limited.

The FIR alleged that during the probe, the Adani Enterprises used a proxy company to get the supply contract. It said, "NCCF received bids from six companies -- Adani Enterprises Ltd, Maheshwari Brothers Coal Limited (MBCL), Vyom Trade Links Pvt. Ltd, Swarana Projects Pvt. Ltd, Gupta Coal India Ltd and Kyori Oremen Ltd.

During investigation it was found that Gupta Coal India Ltd had quoted the NCCF margin of 11.3 percent, while the MBCL quoted the margin of 2.25 percent and rest did not quote any margin to the NCCF.

The FIR said the quotes of the Gupta Coal India Ltd, Kyori Oremen Ltd and Swarana Projects Pvt. Ltd were rejected by the NCCF as they were not found to be fulfilling the tender conditions.

"Post tender negotiation was done by senior officials of NCCF to give undue favour to Adani Enterprises Ltd despite it not qualifing the tender (terms)," the FIR said, adding instead of cancelling the bid of Adani Enterprise Ltd, senior management of NCCF conveyed the offer margin to the company through one of its representative -- Munish Sehgal, who was sitting in the NCCF head office. It is prima facie evident that when the bids were being processed at NCCF head office in Delhi, a representative of Adani Enterprises Ltd. was informed regarding their imminent rejection due to non-submission of NCCF margin and also that MBCL was eligible bidder quoted 2.25 percent margin," it alleged.

The CBI in its FIR, further alleged that Adani Enterprises Ltd. had given an unsecured loan of Rs 16.81 crore to Vyom Trade Links Ltd in 2008-09. "And further it was revealed that the bank guarantees of the Adani Enterprises Ltd. and Vyom Trade Links Ltd. were issues by the same branch of the State Bank of India and at the same time," it said.

"It was clear that Adani Enterprises Ltd. presented Vyom Trade Links Ltd. as a proxy company in this particular tender and Vyom Trade Links Ltd. later withdrew its offer on flimsy ground," the CBI FIR said.

"The aforesaid acts of commissions and omissions on the part of the senior management of the NCCF disclose that during their tenure, they acted in a manner unbecoming of public servants and committed irregularities by way of manipulation in the selection of bidders, thereby giving undue favours to Adani Enterprises Ltd. in award of work for supply of coal to APGENCO despite its disqualification," it added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 23,2020

Jaipur, Jul 23: Four days after the Special Operation Group (SOG) sent a notice to Union minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat in connection with the purported audio clips indicating his alleged involvement in horse trading of MLAs in Rajasthan, a city court has directed the Rajasthan police to probe a complaint alleging Shekhawat's role in a credit society scam worth Rs 840 crore.

The additional district judge Pawan Kumar, on Tuesday, directed the additional chief judicial magistrate's court to send the complaint against Shekhawat to the SOG.

Shekhawat, his wife and other partners have been named in the complaint in the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society scam in which around 50,000 investors allegedly lost about Rs 840 crore.

The Jaipur unit of the SOG has been probing the scam since last year after an FIR was registered on August 23, 2019.

Now, Jaipur ADJ Court-8 ordered a fresh inquiry in the case against Gajendra Singh accepting the revised application filed by Lagu Singh and Guman Singh and said that "this is a serious matter and hence SOG should investigate this".

Both the applicants had invested a huge amount in Sanjivani credit cooperative society.

It is alleged in the complaint that a multi-storey building has been built with the money instead of a theatre which was proposed earlier and many properties were also bought in Ethiopia with the money.

An SOG investigation also reveals that a large amount of money has been deposited into accounts of Shekhawat and his wife at different time spans, said sources.

Earlier, Shekhawat was not mentioned in the chargesheet filed by the SOG in connection with the case. Later, a magistrate's court also rejected the application to include him in the chargesheet. The applicants then approached the additional district judge's court with a revised application.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.