PNB-Modi fraud: CBI arrests Gokulnath Shetty, two others

As the Modi-led NDA government completes the first 100 days of its third term, the Congress party has launched a scathing attack, dubbing it as the "U-Turn Sarkar" for its failures and policy reversals.

At a press conference in Delhi, Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate highlighted what she called "100 days of instability, indecisiveness, and immaturity," accusing the Modi government of damaging critical sectors of the economy and public infrastructure.

Shrinate criticised the government's handling of the economy, which she described as being in "dire straits".

She argued that under Modi's leadership, sectors such as agriculture, youth employment, and infrastructure have been neglected. "These 100 days have been very heavy on the country's economy, farmers, youth, women, infrastructure, railways, and institutions," she said, adding "It has become clear that Narendra Modi has no vision to deal with the country's problems."

She went on to debunk the government's claims of progress in infrastructure development, citing multiple instances of structural failures in key projects.

“The airports inaugurated by Narendra Modi--from Jabalpur to Delhi and Rajkot--could not even withstand a single monsoon,” Shrinate pointed out. She also referenced failures such as:

•    Atal setu: Constructed at a cost of Rs18,000 crore, the bridge developed cracks soon after its inauguration.

•    Sudarshan setu in Gujarat: Opened in February 2024, it also developed cracks within months.

•    Shivaji statue collapse: The iconic statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was destroyed within eight months of being unveiled, an event Shrinate described as an "insult to Shivaji Maharaj."

•    Ram mandir water leakage: The sanctum sanctorum of the Ram Mandir, a symbol of faith for millions, was found to be leaking during the monsoon.

•    "Who will take accountability for these incidents?" Shrinate asked, questioning the government's competency in executing large-scale projects.

•    On railway safety, Shrinate accused the government of overseeing a period marked by frequent accidents and derailments.

•    "There have been 38 railway accidents in 100 days, resulting in 21 deaths," she stated. Despite the public outrage following the tragic Balasore accident, which killed nearly 300 people earlier this year, the Congress spokesperson said that the government has failed to take effective measures to improve rail safety.

•    She criticised the slow implementation of Kavach, an anti-collision device, stating, “The reality is that even after 21 deaths, Kavach is being installed at a pace of 2 km per year, while the Railway Minister shamelessly calls these 'minor' incidents.” Shrinate’s remarks come amidst mounting public concern over the Modi government’s inability to secure rail travel in one of the world’s largest railway networks.

In addition to infrastructure and safety concerns, Shrinate accused the Modi government of making hasty policy decisions, only to later backtrack under public pressure. "If any of your decisions affect the country negatively, it won’t become law because the government will take a U-turn on it," she said. Among the key policy reversals Shrinate cited were:

•    Lateral entry: A controversial policy of hiring private-sector professionals for bureaucratic roles, which was quietly shelved.

•    Broadcast Bill: Withdrawn after fierce opposition, highlighting the government's poor handling of policy legislation.

•    Waqf Board Bill: Another example of the government's failure to gauge the impact of its decisions.

•    NPS to UPS: Indexation policy changes that were hastily reversed after protests from key stakeholders.

"Narendra Modi's first 100 days symbolise not just U-turns, but a government that is fundamentally unsure of its direction," Shrinate remarked.

"In 100 days, 104 heinous crimes have been committed against women, in which there are 157 victims. Women are raped publicly in BJP ruled states but Narendra Modi doesn't say a word on this. But how will you speak, because you are the one who stood with those who sexually exploited the daughters of the country," she added.

The Congress's sharp critique of the Modi government's first 100 days has set the tone for the coming months, as the opposition gears up for a series of state elections and prepares for the 2024 general election.

"The country cannot afford this level of instability, immaturity, and incompetence," Shrinate concluded, calling on citizens to hold the Modi government accountable for what she described as its "endless U-turns and policy failures."

In these 100 days, Congress has made clear that it will focus on highlighting the government’s missteps in the economy, public safety, and governance, presenting itself as a viable alternative in the face of what it calls "a government in retreat."

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday, September 17, said the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 will be passed in the Parliament in the coming days. He said the Bill is committed to the management, preservation and misuse of Waqf properties.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Waqf Bill will meet from September 18 to 20. The JPC is scrutinising the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 which seeks to amend the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2013.

On September 14, a Muslim organisation headed by Congress MP Tariq Anwar demanded the rejection of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. The organisation alleged that the proposed legislation is an "indirect attempt to seize control of Muslim religious properties".

The All India Qaumi Tanzeem submitted 14 pages of suggestions and objections to the bill to the JPC through the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on August 8.

On September 11, a Rajya Sabha panel summoned Minority Affairs Ministry officials to explain reasons for the delay in completing the process for framing subordinate legislation under the 2013 Waqf law.

The new bill seeks to change the registration process for Waqf properties through a centralised portal. It proposes several things, including establishing a Central Waqf Council alongside state Waqf Boards with representation to Muslim women and non-Muslim representatives.

A contentious provision of the Bill is the proposal to designate the district collector as the primary authority in determining whether a property is classified as Waqf or government land.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill also aims at renaming the act to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.

New Delhi, Sep 12: Madrasas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc.

The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education.

"A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said.

"Further, madrasas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court.

The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009.

"A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school.

"A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said.

It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning.

In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order.

The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction.

The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system.

The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore.

It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it."

"We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said.

The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department.