English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Ram mandir in Ayodhya, Masjid in Lucknow, proposes Shia Waqf Board

Published

on

shia-waqf-board-chairman-waseem-rizvi

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Shia Waqf Board on Monday said it has submitted a draft proposal in the Supreme Court suggesting construction of Ram Mandir at the Babri mosque site in Ayodhya and of a ‘Masjid-e-Aman’ in Lucknow’s Hussainabad area for an amicable resolution of the vexed Ayodhya dispute.

Parties to the dispute in the Supreme Court have been dismissive, even critical, Shia Waqf Board’s approach and efforts and even the Shia Personal Law Board has opposed it. Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who concluded his talks with various parties for an amicable resolution of the dispute with a meeting with RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Saturday, also failed to make much progress with others. He and the Shia Waqf Board have both been in touch with each other.

“The draft for resolving the Ayodhya issue, prepared by the Shia Waqf Board, has been submitted in the Supreme Court on November 18,” board chairman Waseem Rizvi told reporters in Lucknow.

The draft was submitted by Waqf Board chairman Waseem Rizvi, although he is not a party to the case. President of All India Akhada Parishad, Mahant Narendra Giri, who is also not a party to the dispute, was also present on the occasion.

Rizvi said that they have come up with the proposal following discussions with different stakeholders. Earlier, the Shia Waqf Board had proposed to the apex court that a temple can be built in Ayodhya and the mosque be located nearby in a Muslim-dominated area.

Rizvi, once a close aide of Samajwadi leader Azam Khan, briefed the media saying, “There is no meaning of building a mosque now at the disputed site in Ayodhya. Instead, a mosque dedicated to peace and brotherhood should be built in Lucknow.”

“The Board is of the view that instead of Ayodhya, a ‘Masjid-e-Aman’ be constructed in Lucknow’s Hussainabad area and it has requested the government to provide one acre land for it,” he said.

Claiming that the formula for resolving the matter proposed by the Shia Waqf Board was the best, Rizvi said the board which is the ‘mutawalli’ (caretaker) of the Babri Mosque had suggested giving up its right over the land in Ayodhya.

“We have made a draft in which it has been clearly said that now Shia Waqf Board will not claim the disputed land, and now the land belongs to the side favouring construction of Ram Mandir. We have already submitted this draft to the Supreme Court on November 18,” he added.

Countering UP Sunni Central Waqf Board’s claim over the disputed site, Rizvi said the one-third land given by the Lucknow bench of the the Allahabad High Court through its September 2010 judgement was to Muslims and not to the Sunni Waqf Board.

Rizvi alleged that the Shia Board’s views on the matter were never put forward in a forceful manner because the lawyers deployed for the purpose were ‘fake’.

“On perusal of the files of the board, we have found that the lawyers pursuing the matter had not even been given the “vakalatnama” by the board,” Rizvi said, demanding that the government order an inquiry into it.

“The Shia Waqf Board is being accused of becoming active on the Ayodhya dispute lately but the reality is that it had no knowledge that lawyers have been deployed in the court from its side…The government needs to inquire as to who had deployed counsels on behalf of the board who did not plead the case properly,” Rizvi said.

Mahant Narendra Giri said that a Ram temple in Ayodhya will be constructed and said that an amicable settlement should be reached on the issue by talking to all the parties concerned.

Rizvi further said the solution would ensure peace and brotherhood in the country. He had recently met several Mahantas, including Mahanta Dharamdas and Mahanta Sureshdas in Ayodhya, for resolving the long-standing dispute, news agency ANI reported.

The Supreme Court had earlier suggested that an out-of-court settlement was the best recourse to the dispute. The court would commence the final hearing of the long-standing matter from December 5, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the medieval-era structure.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Entertainment

Bharti Singh, Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcome second child after she’s rushed to hospital mid-shoot

Comedian Bharti Singh and her husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcomed their second child after she was rushed to hospital during a television shoot.

Published

on

Bharti

Popular comedian and television personality Bharti Singh and her husband, writer-host Haarsh Limbachiyaa, have welcomed their second child. The baby was born on Friday after Bharti was taken to the hospital following a sudden medical emergency earlier in the day, according to media reports.

Emergency during television shoot led to hospitalisation

As per available information, Bharti Singh was scheduled to shoot for the television show Laughter Chefs on Friday morning when her water broke unexpectedly. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital, where she later delivered her second child. No further details about the baby have been shared publicly so far.

The news of the delivery comes weeks after the couple announced Bharti’s second pregnancy on social media.

Pregnancy announcement and maternity shoot

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa had revealed the pregnancy during a family vacation in Switzerland. A few weeks ago, Bharti also shared pictures from her maternity photoshoot, where she was seen wearing a blue silk gown with white floral patterns.

Sharing the photos online, Bharti wrote, “2nd Baby Limbachiya coming soon,” along with a baby emoji.

Family background

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa became parents for the first time in 2022, when they welcomed their son, Lakshya.

The couple is among the most well-known faces on Indian television. Bharti is widely recognised for her comic timing and distinctive on-screen persona, while Haarsh has made his mark as a writer and host. Apart from their television work, the two also co-host a podcast together.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com