‘Modi govt will not tolerate this’: HRD minister to universities against CAA

News Network
December 30, 2019

Kolkata, Dec 30: As anti-citizenship law protests in various universities showed no signs of let up, Union HRD Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal on Sunday said the central government will not tolerate educational institutions turning into hubs of politicking “at any cost”.

He said that anyone is free to engage in political activities, but colleges and universities should be kept out of it, as many students come to study from far-off places.

“The Narendra Modi government is not going to tolerate this at any cost,” he asserted.

Scores of students from universities across the country, including Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi University, Jadavpur University and Presidency University, have been protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Pokhriyal accused the opposition parties of deliberately spreading misinformation over the CAA. “It is the Congress, which is responsible for the country’s division on religious grounds, that is spreading misinformation about CAA,” he said.

Taking a swipe at West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for opposing the citizenship law, the minister said the TMC supremo was the one to protest against illegal immigration in the state in 2005 when she was an MP.

 “She had vociferously demanded the Citizenship Amendment Bill back then,” he said.

On the new education policy that is under works, Pokhriyal said it would be connected with the values of the country.

 “The new education policy, which will be brought out after a gap of 33 years, will be India-centric and connected with the country’s values,” he said.

Pokhriyal said the country’s education will advance through knowledge, science and investigation.

He sought to justify the Centre’s decision to grant citizenship to religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, contending that these countries are “not secular”.

The minister said that during Partition, religious minorities -- including Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Christians -- accounted for “over 23 per cent” of Pakistan’s population, but the figure stands at “around 3 per cent” at present.

 “I want to ask Mamataji, where have these people gone and the Congress should also give an answer as to whether they were forced to change religion or killed or forced to flee?” he said.

Pokhriyal claimed that the Muslim population in India has grown from “9 per cent during Independence to 14 per cent at present”.

“The opposition is referring to Article 14 of the Constitution, but the Constitution is for the citizens of the country and it is not a charity house for the whole world,” he said, asserting that there is equality for every citizen irrespective of religion.

Pokhriyal said there is “no bigger” a well-wisher of Muslims of the country than Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Asked about the protests against West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar at universities, he said it is the failure of the state government and an indication that law and order situation is “slipping out of the hands” of the administration.

Comments

Paul
 - 
Tuesday, 31 Dec 2019

Division an all round standing ovation!!  Stoke the masses cause divide and confused beliefs-amongst the citizens - students; bring in harsh measures at ...Quote ..." at any cost" implement changes of laws etc etc. It's like reading the ABC (Alternating Beurocratic  Crap) of simpletons.

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 11,2020

Kolkata, May 11: Murshidabad district, one of the biggest contributors to the army of migrant workers from West Bengal, received news of unnatural deaths of three of these people since Saturday. While two died in Kerala, one was found dead in a rented house in Odisha.

Residents of Baliaghati village in Murshidabad’s Suti police station area said Safikul Sheikh (31) was killed in a road accident in Kerala. Sheikh’s associates called up his family on Sunday morning and said he had gone to a local market, violating lockdown orders, when the accident took place. Sheikh wanted to return home before Eid but got stranded.

Mohammad Hafijul, one of Sheikh’s relatives, said, “A few days ago a special train from Kerala carried migrant workers to Murshidabad but Safikul did not have the money to buy a ticket. We do not know how his body will be brought back.”

In another incident, a 24-year-old resident of Domkal allegedly hanged himself in Kerala on Saturday. He used to work in a brick kiln. His mother said, “My son was depressed as he could not buy a ticket to board the special train that came to Murshidabad. We have appealed to the local administration to bring back his body.”

In the third incident, Bakul Sheikh (24) died under mysterious circumstances at Sonepur in Odisha where he went five months ago to work as a mason. Sheikh hails from Kohetpur village in Shamserganj. His relatives told the local police that his associates called up and said he was found dead inside the toilet of the house where he was living with other migrant workers.

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.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

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
March 15,2020

Financially troubled Yes Bank on Saturday reported a standalone net loss of ₹ 18,560.31 crore for the third quarter of the financial year 2019-20. This is amongst the biggest losses reported by the India Inc.

At present, the private lender is under a moratorium and is controlled by the office of the administrator appointed by the RBI.

The bank had reported a net profit of ₹1,001.85 crore during the corresponding period of the previous financial year.

Besides, the bank's total income fell to Rs 6,268.50 crore from Rs 8,849.81 crore earned during the October-December quarter of the previous fiscal.

On consolidated basis, Yes Bank reported a net loss of ₹18,564.24 crore for the December quarter from a net profit of Rs 1,000.57 crore in the corresponding period of the previous fiscal.

The independent auditor's review report on the consolidated results pointed out that there is a "material uncertainty related to going concern" of the bank.

"The said assumption of going concern is dependent upon the degree of success of the final reconstruction scheme, the quantum of capital infused into the bank and the bank's ability to stabalise its deposit balances post withdrawal of the moratorium by the RBI. Our conclusion is not modified in respect of this matter," the auditor said.

Furthermore, the bank recognised additional loans of ₹ 5,150.2 crore as NPAs and related provisioning requirements of ₹772.5 crore for the quarter ended December 31, 2019.

The bank has recognised an additional provisions of ₹15,422.0 crore in the quarter ended December 31, 2019.

Last week, the RBI placed Yes Bank under moratorium and capped the withdrawal limit at ₹50,000 till next Wednesday.

Additionally, the central bank also superseded Yes Bank's board of directors and appointed former SBI CFO Prashant Kumar as its administrator.

Meanwhile, Kumar has been appointed as the new Chief Executive Officer of the financially troubled lender. He will take over his new responsibilities once the moratorium on the stressed lender is lifted on Wednesday.

Apart from Kumar, Sunil Mehta, former non-executive Chairman of Punjab National Bank, will take over as the non-executive Chairman of Yes Bank.

Other board members include Mahesh Krishnamurthy and Atul Bheda, both as non-executive Directors.

Additionally, six private lenders have joined the SBI to rescue Yes Bank with Federal Bank committing ₹300 crore by subscribing to 30 crore shares of ₹2 each at a premium of ₹8 per equity share.

The six private lenders have now committed an investment of ₹3,700 crore in the cash-strapped private sector bank.

On Friday, ICICI Bank and Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) Ltd had announced that they will be investing ₹1,000 crore each in Yes Bank's equity. Axis Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank will be investing ₹ 600 crore and ₹500 crore, respectively, while Bandhan Bank will invest ₹300 crore.

The SBI board has already approved up to 49 per cent stake purchase in Yes Bank, as per the RBI's reconstruction scheme for the lender. It had said on Thursday that an investment of ₹7,250 crore would be made in Yes Bank to pick up₹ 725 crore equity shares.

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.