English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar meets Adityanath, stakeholders in Ayodhya dispute downplay mediation efforts

Published

on

yogi-adityanath

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The BJP downplayed it and the Muslim bodies, too, rebuffed it, while the Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Shia Waqf Board claimed that their attempt at playing mediator to resolve the Ayodhya dispute is neither a publicity stunt nor is it politically motivated.

Questioning their intentions, as none of them is a party in the case, the stakeholders in the Ayodhya case slammed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Waseem Rizvi of Shia Waqf Board, the two who have been talking of arriving at a reconciliation formula.

Ravi Shankar met Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow ahead of his visit to Ayodhya on Thursday, a meeting described by a senior state official as a “courtesy meeting” which lasted about 15-20 minutes and went off well.

“As far as the Ayodhya issue is concerned, Adityanath’s stand is very clear. The state government is not a party. We welcome any settlement and will honour the decision of the court,” he said, according to media reports.

This was more in accordance with the line taken by senior RSS functionary Ram Madhav, who is now BJP national general secretary. Madhav Wednesday downplayed Ravi Shankar’s visit to Ayodhya. He said first the legal process should be allowed to be completed in the Supreme Court, and only after that should other options be explored.

Speaking to ANI, Madhav said, “The legal proceedings are at an advanced stage in the Supreme Court right now. We all should allow the legal process to be completed in the Supreme Court. Once that’s done, then other options can be explored. So right now the matter should be left for Supreme Court to decide.”

Earlier, Adityanath had welcomed Ravi Shankar’s move and said that any such move to mediate between the two parties was welcome. Adityanath said that talks were the only way out to find a solution to the dispute. He said that if no consensus is reached through talks, the court will take a decision on Ayodhya.

“Talks had begun earlier also and one party always excluded itself from it, so the problem is not that there should be talks, but that both parties should agree to it. Good results can come out of such talks, but the intention should be right,” Adityanath had earlier said.

That seems to have changed now. Besides the BJP, the Sunni Board and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) also rebuffed the mediation efforts, saying Ravi Shankar had no legal standing on the Ayodhya matter and hence they had decided to reject his offer for a dialogue on the issue.

On the other hand, escalating the mediation move, Home Minister Rajnath Singh also met Muslim and Sufi clerics in the national capital for talks over the Ayodhya matter.

Ravi Shankar has refuted his critics’ claim that his efforts to mediate in the matter were influenced by the governments and has repeatedly stated that he was doing it “at his own will”.

Earlier this week, Ravi Shankar had said in Delhi that he was involved as a mediator in the Ram Temple dispute of his own will and would visit Ayodhya on November 16 to meet all stakeholders. He said he did not have an agenda and would listen to everybody.

Initiating his mediation effort, Ravi Shankar last month met Uttar Pradesh Shia Waqf Board Chief Wasim Rizvi in Bengaluru regarding the issue and Rizvi had described his meeting with the spiritual leader as “very positive”. Rizvi had said, “We are the real stakeholders here,” adding that the board welcomes Sri Sri’s initiative. He went on to say that the construction of the Ram Temple can begin as early as 2018.

On Monday, Waseem Rizvi and Ravi Shankar held a meeting on the Ayodhya issue after the former met saints in Ayodhya and leaders of the Akhada Parishad in Allahabad. Soon after his meeting, Rizvi, along with Narendra Giri, announced that the reconciliation was done. He further declared Ram temple will be built in Ayodhya, while the mosque will be constructed in the Muslim-dominated Ayodhya-Faizabad area.

However, while Art of living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar met Adityanath on Wednesday, the Shia Personal Law Board clarified that the Board does not agree to the claims made by the Shia Waqf Board. The Board labelled the claims made by Shia Waqf Board Chairman Waseem Rizvi as a publicity stunt.

All India Shia Personal Law Board member, Maulana Yasoob Abbas told News18, “Settlement is good, but how can you say that you are giving up the mosque land? A mosque is the house of Allah and the All India Shia Personal Law Board is certainly not ready to give up the mosque land. The Board certainly does not agree to what Waseem Rizvi or the Shia Waqf Board has claimed.”

The efforts for mediation in Ayodhya dispute have thus received a cold reception.

The Supreme Court had suggested that an out-of-court settlement was the best recourse to the dispute.

The apex court will 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 Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babar in 1528.[/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