Sharad Pawar: Why insist that celebs have voice on Hindi imposition
Kolhapur: NCP (SP) chief
Sharad Pawar
on Friday said celebrities such as cricketer Sachin Tendulkar should not be insisted upon to express their views on making Hindi a must in Maharashtra school curriculum through National Education Policy 2020.
"Ask Sachin about cricket; don't force him to take a stand on Hindi imposition," the veteran politician said in Kolhapur on Friday.
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray announced a march in Mumbai on July 5 against Hindi as a compulsory language for students in state schools from Class 1. Although NCP (SP) has declared support to the July 5 Mumbai protest march, Raj Thackeray said he wanted to see who — especially Marathi artists and sportspersons — turn up and who do not for the march.
"I don't know what Raj Thackeray meant by that. Why should one insist that Sachin Tendulkar puts his views across (on the issue of Hindi imposition)? I can understand if he is asked to share his views about cricket. Don't ask such personalities about issues not related to them. The issue of imposition of Hindi is important for us. Someone seeking their views and saying 'will see who comes for the protest and who does not' is not good," Pawar said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Kamiq 130 Edition. Pensato con quello che desideri, di serie.
Škoda
Scopri di più
Undo
At the receiving end of criticism after issuing a govt resolution on a three-language policy from Std I last week, state govt in a partial rollback on Thursday said the third language would be taught orally, in Stds I and II, with no textbooks given to students and tests or exams.
The NCP (SP) chief added, "Teach Hindi in state schools from Std V. Ignoring Hindi is also not good, as around 55% of people in the country speak the language."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Student can't correct NEET application post deadline, even if its typo, says Telangana HC
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court on Friday asked students to be careful while filling up applications for competitive exams even as it dismissed a Hyderabad student's plea to let her make corrections in her NEET UG application. The student had made a typographical error in the form, opting for Uttar Pradesh instead of Telangana as her eligibility state and the National Testing Agency (NTA) had dismissed her request to make corrections. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad A division bench of acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, while dismissing the plea, maintained that it found nothing wrong in NTA's decision to reject the request. It also said that judicial decisions could not override technical and procedural constraints once the deadline to submit the form had passed. The court observed that the student failed to act diligently and could not expect special consideration now. The court noted in its order that the NTA's public notice clearly stated corrections would be allowed only until March 11, 2025, up to 11:50 PM, and no changes would be permitted thereafter. The NTA submitted before the court that their software did not support reopening or modifying entries once the deadline had passed, and that any such action would disrupt the process for lakhs of candidates. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 最強のヒーローチームを編成する力はありますか? レイドシャドウレジェンド 今すぐインストール Undo The student had submitted her first representation to make the correction only on May 27, more than two months after the deadline had passed, the court observed. The student, relying on a previous order of the high court in a similar case, had sought relief, but the judges clarified that the earlier decision did not lay down any binding precedent and merely directed the authorities to consider a representation.
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country. The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US. The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil. The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families. What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status. Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law. Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically. Trump's executive order and the legal backlash Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship. Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment. Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote. The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued. In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.' What comes next for immigrants? Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation. Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Govt has a significant role': RG Kar victim's father speaks out; slams TMC for Kolkata law student gangrape
NEW DELHI: Nearly a year after the shocking rape and murder of a student at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata, city witnessed another disturbing case. Speaking on the incident, the RG Kar victim's father expressed anger over the repeated crimes, blamed the Mamata Banerjee-led state government, and demanded strict punishment for the accused. A female law student was allegedly gang-raped inside her college in South Kolkata's Kasba area on Wednesday evening, raising fresh concerns about women's safety in the city. ANI news agency quoted him saying, "Such incidents are happening again and again. After what happened with my daughter, many people came out on the streets in protest. Even after that, such incidents continue to occur. People inside the college are committing such incidents. The government has a significant role in this, which is why all these incidents are happening. All three people arrested are from the TMC , so this political party should ensure that such incidents do not happen again. The accused should be severely punished." The BJP also reacted strongly. In a post on X, the party said TMC stands for "Terror, Molester, and Corruption." TMC leader Shashi Panja responded by saying she was deeply disturbed by the incident. She defended the police action and criticised the BJP for politicising the issue. She said, "There was an immediate postmortem and dissection to look at the names and the religion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like eToro IPO Goes Live on Nasdaq – Discover the IPO Buzz Today eToro Click Here Undo You have to condemn the incident. You are now trying to show photographs. Trinamool Congress Student wing is not teaching the students to rape. The police took immediate action, and within 12 hours of the complaint, three people were caught. They are in custody, and the investigation is on. Their mobile phones have been seized, and the victim's statement has been taken. She has named the accused. It has been taken seriously. The BJP cannot even think the way Kolkata police swung into action. They started maligning since such swift action is missing in the BJP-ruled states. If they want to be in Bengal as a responsible Opposition, then they have to behave responsibly." According to the police, the assault happened between 7:30pm and 10:50pm on Wednesday inside the law college building. One of the accused allegedly raped the student, while the others helped in the crime. The three accused are Monojit Mishra (31), Zaib Ahmed (19), and Pramit Mukhopadhyay (20). All are former students or staff of the college. The victim's family filed a police complaint, and officers arrested Monojit and Zaib on Thursday near Talbagan Crossing. Pramit was arrested later that night at his home. The police seized the mobile phones of the accused and have kept the crime scene under protection for forensic tests. The accused are being taken to court for police custody as the investigation continues.
