Media completing ignoring issues of rural India, says Sainath

Mumbai, Mar 7: Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shiv Sena president Uddhav Thackeray visited Ayodhya on Saturday to commemorate 100 days in office and pledged Rs 1 crore towards the building of the Ram Temple.

Taking a dig at BJP, Uddhav said his party had separated from its erstwhile ally but not Hindutva.

Recollecting the contribution of his father Balasaheb Thackeray, uddhav said he was forced to skip the Sarayu River 'aarti' due to Coronavirus fears but he would continue visiting Ayodhya.

Earlier in the day, the Sena, which heads the tripartite dispensation in the state, said there was no change in its ideology.

Launching a veiled attack on BJP, an editorial in the Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana' also said that Lord Ram and Hindutva is not the sole property of any single political party.

The Sena also said the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government — which also comprises the NCP and the Congress — has completed 100 days, much to the chagrin of those who were claiming that the new dispensation will not survive more than 100 hours.

“Those whose government lasted for 80 hours were claiming that the Thackeray regime will not last for even 100 hours. But this MVA government not only thrived but has instilled trust in the minds of people during this period with its performance,” the editorial said.

The Sena was apparently referring to the second inning of the erstwhile Devendra Fadnavis government which lasted for only 80 hours in November last year.

"Hence, CM Thackeray's visit to Ayodhya has to be welcomed as he is offering the flowers of works (done by the government) at the feet of Lord Shriram," it said.

The Sena said Thackeray's visit to the temple town is out of devotion for Lord Shriram. "The government in Maharashtra comprising three ideologically different parties is working as per Constitution and Thackeray is leading such government," it said.

The edit said on this background various questions were raised over Thackeray's visit to Ayodhya by his political opponents. "The government maybe backed by anyone, but Uddhav Thackeray and the Shiv Sena remain the same from within and outside. There is no change in the ideology. Lord Shriram and Hindutva is not the property of any single party," it stated.

Referring to senior RSS leader Suresh 'Bhaiyyaji' Joshi's remark that the Hindu community is not synonymous with the BJP and that opposing the BJP does not amount to opposing Hindus, the Sena said similarly Ayodhya belongs to all.

"The political and cultural battle in Ayodhya is now over. The Supreme Court cannot be thanked enough for this (for its verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case that allowed construction of the Ram temple)," it said.

Hailing the Supreme Court's November, 2019 verdict, the Sena said the country had to fight a big battle to prove that Ayodhya belonged to Lord Shriram.

"In that battle, several (people) were unmasked. But only (late) Shiv Sena president Balasaheb Thackeray stood behind the Ayodhya (temple) campaigners like a mountain," it said.

Bal Thackeray created trust among Hindus from across the world about the creation of the temple, the Sena said. The party further said late Thackeray's assertion that he was proud if the Babri mosque was razed by Sena workers and that the temple of Lord Ram would come up in Ayodhya was akin to the thunder of "thousands of lightnings" in the sky.

"The Hindu culture got lit up in the glow of that lightning. The resplendent rays showed the path of power to the Hindu community. Hence, no one can deny the contribution of the 'Hinduhridaysamrat' (Bal Thackeray) as good as that of Lord Shriram, in creating the current political order in the country," the Sena said.

"We have experienced several times that Balasaheb lives in the mind of Ayodhya. Now Uddhav Thackeray himself is going there with the same faith. He had gone there when not in power. He is going there now after becoming chief minister with the same humility. Lord Shriram is of everyone," the Sena said.

The party said Maharashtra is being run on the path shown by Lord Shriram and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. "A Ram Rajya entails fulfilling promises made to the people. This is precisely what Mahatma Gandhi wanted, and the government following this ideology is in place in Maharashtra. It will continue work on that line. Ultimately, Lord Shriram is there to support it," the Sena said.

Thackeray completed 100 days in the office on Friday. He had assumed office as the chief minister of the Sena-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government on November 28 last year, after the Sena joined hands with the NCP and the Congress.

Senior Sena leader Sanjay Raut had said that Thackeray will not take part in the 'aarti' programme on the banks of river Sarayu in the temple town.

New Delhi, May 30: The COVID-19 pandemic has left the Indian private healthcare sector in acute financial distress, a new survey said on Friday adding that the healthcare facilities in the country have witnessed at least 80 per cent fall in average revenue.

Post the lockdown from March 24, Indian hospitals have seen a large impact, especially among small and medium-sized hospitals, which are now facing existential challenges.

The survey by healthcare industry body NATHEALTH was conducted in 251 healthcare facilities across nine states and 69 cities to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the domestic healthcare industry.

The findings showed that 90 per cent of the surveyed healthcare facilities are facing financial challenges with 21 per cent facilities facing an existential threat.

"There is a need for a stimulus package to revive the Indian healthcare industry which will be crucial to provide much-needed relief to the healthcare sector which is the frontline defence in this fight against COVID-19," said Dr Sudarshan Ballal, President NATHEALTH.

According to the survey, hospitals in tier 1 and tier 2 cities are experiencing a 78 per cent reduction in OPD footfalls, and a drop of 79 per cent in in-patient admissions.

The study found that 90 per cent of organisations require some form of financial assistance.

The findings indicated that even after the lockdown lift, the situation will remain difficult for the hospitals and nursing homes as patients will hesitate from visiting hospitals.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.