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.
News Network
May 8,2020

New Delhi, May 8: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that states should consider indirect sale and home delivery of liquor as per its statute and law to avoid crowding at liquor shops amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan refused to pass any orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing while it is being sold in liquor shops during the lockdown.

"We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards," Justice Ashok Bhushan said while disposing of the petition.

The PIL, filed by one Sai Deepak, sought directions for closure of liquor shops for failing to enforce social distancing, which is essential to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

The petitioner told the apex court that he only wants that the life of common people is not affected because of crowding at liquor shops during COVID-19.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, another judge in the bench, said that discussion on home delivery is already going on.

The top court, after hearing the petition complaining about flouting of safety norms at liquor shops, observed that it cannot pass any orders to different states but they should consider online sale and home delivery of liquor.

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.
News Network
March 6,2020

New Delhi, Mar 6: Shares of YES Bank and State Bank of India came under huge selling pressure on Friday as developments unfolded regarding SBI picking stake in the private lender. Shares of the lender hit record low of Rs 5.55, plunging 85 per cent, and were trading below its previous low of Rs 8.16 hit on March 9, 2009.

SBI, on the other hand, slumped 11 per cent to Rs 257.35 on the BSE. The benchmark S&P BSE Sensex was trading with a cut of over 3 per cent at 37,251.37 level.

In the past three months, share price of the private lender has plunged 41 per cent, while the state-owned lender has slipped 14 per cent. In comparison, the S&P BSE Sensex has dipped 5.6 per cent till Thursday.

On Thursday, the Reserve Bank of India superseded the board of troubled private sector lender YES Bank and imposed a 30-day moratorium on it “in the absence of a credible revival plan” amid a “serious deterioration” in its financial health.

During the moratorium, which came into effect from 6 pm on Thursday, YES Bank will not be allowed to grant or renew any loans, and “incur any liability”, except for payment towards employees’ salaries, rent, taxes and legal expenses, among others.

This is the first time that a bank of this size will be put under a moratorium by the RBI.

“The financial position of YES Bank had undergone a steady decline “largely due to inability of the bank to raise capital to address potential loan losses and resultant downgrades, triggering invocation of bond covenants by investors, and withdrawal of deposits,” RBI said in a statement.

“After the moratorium, the next step will be to infuse to money and keep the bank afloat. So from shareholders’ point of view, the future is certainly hazy as the capital requirement is huge. The good part, however, is that the RBI has stepped in and depositors don't have to worry,” says Siddharth Purohit, a research analyst at SMC Securities.

Meanwhile, analysts at Nomura believe that placing the Bank under moratorium implies that equity value in the bank would be negligible, and that the chances of private capital participating in future capital raising plan are near zero.

"Any resolution for Yes Bank is more proposed from the perspective of deposit holders and systemic stability, and not from the perspective of Yes Bank equity investors or even perpetual bond holders," they wrote in a note dated March 6.

In another development, SBI’s Board Thursday gave in-principle approval to consider an “investment opportunity” in YES Bank, even as it said “no decision had yet been taken to pick up stake in the bank”.

According to a  report, highly-placed sources indicated a rescue plan involving SBI and Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) was being discussed and an announcement in this regard might be made soon.

“While the finer details of the deal are being worked out, it is anticipated that both SBI and LIC together will take a 51 per cent stake in the bank, with a one-year lock-in period,” the report said.

Most analysts believe it is a positive step for the Indian financial sector as the government has tried to avoid a repeat of IL&FS-like crisis.

“The move is a positive step for the financial sector as a whole. By this, the government has tried to avoid a repeat of IL&FS-like crisis and has saved the depositors,” said AK Prabhakar, Head of Research at IDBI Capital. While we know that YES Bank has a huge pile of bad loans, SBI is the only bank that has the capacity to absorb it, he added.

However, the valuation at which YES bank would be taken over remains a cause of concern.

Global brokerage firm JP Morgan Thursday cut its target price for YES Bank on Thursday to Rs 1 per share, taking into account the potential fall in the lender’s net worth due to stressed assets.

“We believe forced bailout investors will likely want the bank to be acquired at near-zero value to account for risks associated with the stress book and likely loss of deposits. We think the bank will need to be recapitalised at nominal equity value and could test dilution of additional tier 1 (AT1) capital. We remain underweight and cut our target price to Rs 1 as we believe net worth is largely impaired,” JP Morgan said in a note.

Global brokerage firm Nomura estimates a need of Rs 25,000-44,000 crore and adjusted for Rs 7,400 crore of current coverage, if the current stress of Rs 65,000-70,000 crore faces 70 per cent loss given default (LGD).

"It implies Rs 18,000-37,000 crore needed for provisioning against the current net worth of Rs 25,700 crore Also, to run as going concern, the bank would require over Rs 20,000 crore of CET-1 capital as well," the note said.

YES Bank has registered slippages of Rs 12,000 crore so far in FY20, while it has placed Rs 30,000 crore of loan assets under the watch list. Its deposits stood at Rs 2.09 trillion on September 30, 2019, while its advances totalled Rs 2.24 trillion. The bank has delayed publishing its December quarter results by a month to March 14.

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.
News Network
April 28,2020

Kochi, Apr 28: The Central government on Tuesday told Kerala High Court that the Kerala government will have to take up with other states the matter pertaining to bringing back COVID-19 affected Malayali nurses.

A Division Bench of Justice PV Asha and Justice V Shircy asked the Kerala government to examine if there is any solution that may be considered and orally noted the suggestion that perhaps a video-conference may be conducted between the states on the matter.

The matter was posted for further hearing on April 30.

Counsel for the Central government said that the "Centre has issued guidelines for the protection of health workers. But in this specific case, state governments have assured that nurses are being given proper treatment."
"The plea is on apprehensions that they are not being treated well in the other states.

Centre could help if there is any necessary requirement thereafter," the Centre's counsel said.

Advocate Abraham Vakkanal, appearing for the state government, said that state chief secretary has written to Union cabinet secretary to relax travel restrictions amid COVID-19 lockdown to bring back the nurses.

Vakkanal said that the state has sought permission and is waiting for approval and will take further actions if permission is received on the matter.

Advocate Anupama Subramaniam, appearing for the petitioner, said that 68 Malayali nurses in other states have reached out to inform that they are not being given treatment and that facilities for food and shelter are also not readily available for them.

Kerala High Court had earlier asked the Centre and the state government to file their reply on the plea.

The court was hearing a petition seeking to bring COVID-19 affected Malayali nurses back to Kerala from other States considering their "poor health and working conditions".

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.