Speaker 1: Early childhood development plays the foundation for a child's future,
Speaker 1: with the first five years playing a crucial role in
Speaker 1: shaping their lives and overall well being. Ensuring that children
Speaker 1: receive proper care not only improves individual outcomes, but also
Speaker 1: contributes to healthier, more productive societies. However, achieving these outcomes
Speaker 1: requires consistent and adequate financing. Today, we are excited to
Speaker 1: bring to you our fifth episode in collaboration with Mobile Crushes,
Speaker 1: where we talk about prioritizing financing for early childhood development
Speaker 1: with Sheikufei Zoji, who is the Global technical lead at
Speaker 1: Early Childhood Development Action Network.
Speaker 2: The episode will air today at eight am. Do not
Speaker 2: forget to tune in.
Speaker 1: You can find the links to our previous episodes with
Speaker 1: Mobile Crushes in the description.
Speaker 2: Now on with the show.
Speaker 1: Hi, I am Nahari Kananda and you are listening to
Speaker 1: three things in an Express News show. In this episode,
Speaker 1: we talk about allegations of misappropriation of the nations at
Speaker 1: the Western Navi Temple after nearly twenty tons of the
Speaker 1: shrine's silver offerings were tested. We also discuss what senior
Speaker 1: government officials have to say regarding the demands for Educational
Speaker 1: Minister TARMINDR. Pradhan's resignation post the neat paper leak. But
Speaker 1: we begin today by talking about a law which would
Speaker 1: change the legal status of One Day Matram. In the
Speaker 1: upcoming monsoon session of the parliament, Union Home Minister Amitshah
Speaker 1: is set to introduce an amendment to the Prevention of
Speaker 1: Insults to National Honor Act nineteen seventy one. Now, at present,
Speaker 1: the law makes it a criminal offense to intentionally prevent
Speaker 1: the singing of the national anthem Juhan Gunman or disturb
Speaker 1: an assembly engaged in singing it. The proposed amendment would
Speaker 1: bring the national song One Day Matrm within the same
Speaker 1: legal protection. Now, before we go ahead, it's important for
Speaker 1: us to understand how this song written by Bunkim Chundra
Speaker 1: Strategy came to be and how it rose to prominence.
Speaker 1: Here's the Indian expresses Vekaspartak, who spoke to us previously
Speaker 1: on the podcast.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so basically it happened that in eighteen seventy five,
Speaker 3: One Day Mathram was first composed independently and separately, and
Speaker 3: it was basically a description of what Bunkim saw as
Speaker 3: quote and quote the Motherland. Now, apart from the first
Speaker 3: two stanzas, which are you know, descriptions of the beauty
Speaker 3: of the country. There were other stanzas as well that
Speaker 3: came up, and those stanzas were a bit more of
Speaker 3: having some religious undertones because they described the motherland as
Speaker 3: variously as you know, Durga, Saraswati Lakshmi. So that was
Speaker 3: the full one day Mathram that came up in Annan
Speaker 3: the Mutt. Now in nineteen thirties, the Indian National Congress
Speaker 3: was trying very hard to get Muslims on board in
Speaker 3: the freedom struggle and to ensure that Muslims did not
Speaker 3: join the Muslim League. And in nineteen thirty seven the
Speaker 3: Congress Working Committee actually went through the whole thing and
Speaker 3: they decided that the first two stanzas of one d
Speaker 3: Maram have been an inspiration for millions of people in
Speaker 3: India who have been freedom fighters or who have taken
Speaker 3: part in the freedom struggle, who have gone to jail,
Speaker 3: who have been beaten up, who have sometimes been executed.
Speaker 3: So they said that these two stanzas must be given
Speaker 3: due respect and should be used. And they said the
Speaker 3: remaining stanzas, which are being seen as some kind of
Speaker 3: having religious illusions, they can be avoided for national purposes.
Speaker 3: And later when the question came as to what should
Speaker 3: be the national anthem of India, so around independence, it
Speaker 3: was decided that Jenagan One will become the national anthem,
Speaker 3: and the Nehru wrote a note to the Cabinet saying
Speaker 3: that it was more amenable to orchestral rendering because the
Speaker 3: national anthem has to be sung across the world and
Speaker 3: Jenagan Ones was easier put to tune than One Day
Speaker 3: Mapra though one Day Matraam had also been put to tune,
Speaker 3: but it was felt that Jendaman is more suited and
Speaker 3: it was said that the first two stanzas of the
Speaker 3: One Day Mathram will remain as the national song and
Speaker 3: will continue to get the respect that it had during
Speaker 3: the freedom struggle.
Speaker 4: So that is how the position emerged.
Speaker 3: So after that, gradually, as you see over the decades,
Speaker 3: the One Day Mathram became more associated with the VJP,
Speaker 3: the RS is the AVVP and almost every RSS function
Speaker 3: or even JP function or with the Archiparissus function also
Speaker 3: has you know, a recital of one Day Mathram on campuses.
Speaker 3: The AVP in its pamphlets and leaflets actually says one
Speaker 3: day Athram is a form of salutation, so gradually it
Speaker 3: became more associated with the Hindutu than with the Indian
Speaker 3: National Congress, though the Congress continued to say that we
Speaker 3: respect the first two stanzas.
Speaker 1: Now the bill comes months after the Home Minister issued
Speaker 1: guidelines on the singing and playing of the national song,
Speaker 1: including when it may be sung and how audiences should respond.
Speaker 1: So to understand what exactly does this amendment propose and
Speaker 1: what constitutional questions could arise if the bill is passed
Speaker 1: Michae colleague Cheshama speaks to the Indian expresses beneath balla.
Speaker 5: We need for those who may not know already. Could
Speaker 5: you start by reminding us of the legal distinction between
Speaker 5: Janaguannamana and one day Matram.
Speaker 2: And also explain what this new bill proposes.
Speaker 6: So there is a distinction in a legal framework between
Speaker 6: the national anthem and the national song. In our Constitution
Speaker 6: Article fifty one A, which lists out the fundamental duties
Speaker 6: for a citizen, it makes it a fundamental duty to
Speaker 6: respect the national anthem. On the other hand, the national
Speaker 6: song is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution at all.
Speaker 6: Even if we look at government protocol For example, there
Speaker 6: are guidelines that the government has come out with regarding
Speaker 6: the playing of the national anthem and the playing of
Speaker 6: the national so both these can be played when the
Speaker 6: President or the governor.
Speaker 4: Arrives at state functions.
Speaker 6: But the national anthem is deeply integrated into military protocol
Speaker 6: things like regimental presentations, parades and Navy color hoistings. The
Speaker 6: National song, on the other hand, is mostly kept to
Speaker 6: what are defined as civil investitures. And of course still
Speaker 6: now the national anthem had protection under the Prevention of
Speaker 6: Insults to National Honor Act.
Speaker 4: You asked what the act does right.
Speaker 6: Basically, the Act says that intentionally preventing the singing of
Speaker 6: the national anthem is a criminal offense, and what this
Speaker 6: new bill is now doing is it is bringing the
Speaker 6: same protection to the national song as well. So just
Speaker 6: like Jananamann, now intentionally preventing the singing of one day
Speaker 6: Mathram or causing a disturbance while it's being sung would
Speaker 6: become a criminal offenseable by up to three years in
Speaker 6: prison or a fine or both. So what this does
Speaker 6: is essentially, in a way, brings the national song to
Speaker 6: almost an equivalent legal status with the National anthem. At
Speaker 6: least when it comes to its protection through criminal penalty.
Speaker 5: Underneath, Why now and also why is this being seen
Speaker 5: as such a significant legal change?
Speaker 4: Why now?
Speaker 6: I think it's hard to say, right because earlier they
Speaker 6: hear the government conducted a discussion in Parliament on Vanday
Speaker 6: Mathram and even this bill Statement of Objects and Reasons,
Speaker 6: it points out that in the Constituent Assembly the President,
Speaker 6: Doctor rajen the Prasad had declared that Vanda Mathriam should
Speaker 6: have equal status with Jenaganama.
Speaker 4: Now, whether he.
Speaker 6: Had actually done that and what the full context of
Speaker 6: that was that.
Speaker 4: Is like a whole different discussion.
Speaker 6: But it seems to me that the objective behind this
Speaker 6: is purely political. There is no overarching legal need for
Speaker 6: doing this. Why this is significant is because, as I said,
Speaker 6: it brings the National Song to the same legal footing
Speaker 6: as the National Anthem when it comes to legal protection,
Speaker 6: even though the National Song does not have a constitutional
Speaker 6: status like the National Anthem does. Right, And this can
Speaker 6: I suppose, trigger not just debates in the public discourse,
Speaker 6: but also perhaps like legal debates over whether it is
Speaker 6: legitimate to bring this kind of statutory protection to the
Speaker 6: National song and make it equal to the National Anthem
Speaker 6: when both of them are clearly not on the same
Speaker 6: constitutional footing. And once a bill is passed, if there
Speaker 6: are prosecutions that happen over alleged insults to the national song,
Speaker 6: then we might see litigation over the constitutionality of this amendment.
Speaker 4: In courts right.
Speaker 5: And given that it is seen as a criminal offense,
Speaker 5: if this bill becomes law, what kinds of conduct would
Speaker 5: actually become punishable? Does it criminalize refusing to sing or
Speaker 5: only actively disrupting the singing?
Speaker 6: It doesn't say anything about refusing to sing, and it
Speaker 6: targets only intentionally preventing the singing or causing disturbance to
Speaker 6: the singing of the song. So this is the language
Speaker 6: of the legal provision which is being added. And this
Speaker 6: is also the language of the legal provision which already
Speaker 6: protects the national anthem. To understand what it means in practice,
Speaker 6: if we look at previously decided cases involving the national anthem. So,
Speaker 6: for example, in twenty fourteen, the Kerala High Court had
Speaker 6: looked at a case where a person was accused of
Speaker 6: making a hue and cry while the national anthem was
Speaker 6: being played, and the judge in that case ruled that
Speaker 6: making loud or contemptuous noises to obstruct the singing of
Speaker 6: the National anthem is covered within the nineteen seventy one Act.
Speaker 6: So we're not talking about refusing to sing. We're talking
Speaker 6: about active intentional disruption. In fact, the Supreme Court had
Speaker 6: held in a landmark judgment in nineteen eighty six bijoim
Speaker 6: Manual versus Union of India, that refusing to sing the
Speaker 6: national anthem is not an offense under the nineteen seventy
Speaker 6: one Act. What had happened in that case was that
Speaker 6: three children from the Jehovah's Witnesses sect of the Christian faiths.
Speaker 6: They were expelled from their school in Kerala because they
Speaker 6: would stand in silence while the National anthem played at
Speaker 6: the school but refused to sing because their religious faith
Speaker 6: only permits singing praises to their God. And when the
Speaker 6: case reached the Supreme Court, the Court ruled in their favor,
Speaker 6: stating that their expulsion from school was a violation of
Speaker 6: their fundamental right to free speech and religious freedom. And
Speaker 6: the Court made a very important distinction that there is
Speaker 6: no legal provision forcing anyone to actually sing the national
Speaker 6: anthem and showing proper respect like standing up and staying
Speaker 6: silent while the anthem is being played is enough, great.
Speaker 5: And we understand that. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court
Speaker 5: dismissed a challenge to the Center's advisory on Monde Matram,
Speaker 5: noting that it carried no penal consequences. So does this
Speaker 5: bill potentially alter the constitutional balance?
Speaker 6: That is a big question for sure, because, as I said,
Speaker 6: the objective behind this bill seems to me to be political,
Speaker 6: and it will lead to debates and discussions on nationalism
Speaker 6: and how patriotism is expressed in public spaces right now.
Speaker 6: The case that you referred to earlier this year, in
Speaker 6: that the petitioner had argued that compelling people to sing
Speaker 6: a song regardless of their faith could feel like forced
Speaker 6: demonstration of loyalty, and the Court had dismissed that petition
Speaker 6: by saying that the government advisory does not carry any
Speaker 6: penal consequences. Therefore, there is no coercion to anyone and
Speaker 6: no forcible singing being.
Speaker 4: Mandated by the guidelines.
Speaker 6: Now with this law, if it comes in, even though
Speaker 6: targets disturbance rather than disturbance of singing of the national
Speaker 6: anthem and does not exactly compel singing of the national
Speaker 6: song or punished silence. I'm sure like there will surely
Speaker 6: be some test cases where the threat of a three
Speaker 6: year jail term under this law could be misused by
Speaker 6: bad actors by crowds to target either minorities or dissenters
Speaker 6: who simply choose to stay silent when the national song
Speaker 6: is being played. So when something like that happens, then
Speaker 6: definitely this might lead to difficult legal questions which will
Speaker 6: have to be eventually decided upon by quotes.
Speaker 1: And next we turn to allegations of the misappropriation of
Speaker 1: funds at the vsh No Navi Temple. After a similar
Speaker 1: controversy over donations at the Ram Temple in Aodha, questions
Speaker 1: are now being raised about silver offerings made by devotees
Speaker 1: at the vashn Dav Shrine in Katra. A quote in
Speaker 1: Jamu is currently hearing a plea alleging the adulteration and
Speaker 1: possible misappropriation of silver worth nearly five hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: kole rupees.
Speaker 2: The controversy surfaced after tests.
Speaker 1: Reportedly found that only around five to six percent of
Speaker 1: nearly twenty tons of the shrine's silver offerings was actually silver.
Speaker 1: To understand what led to these allegations, how they came
Speaker 1: to light, and what exactly the quote is examining. We
Speaker 1: speak to the Indian expresses around Sharma who reported on
Speaker 1: the story. Aaron, can you begin by talking about the
Speaker 1: pattern in which donations are made at the vash Lav Temple.
Speaker 7: Yeah, you see that nearly one crewde people visit the
Speaker 7: holy shrine every year from all over the country and
Speaker 7: even a broad as well. And their donating cash through
Speaker 7: checks through demand draft are even in kind like gold, silver,
Speaker 7: and sometimes they donate even cattering hosekeeping items and even
Speaker 7: sponsor lungers something like that. And these donations they are
Speaker 7: collected at designated centers at the shrine en route to
Speaker 7: Katra and matavashn the v shrine the route on which
Speaker 7: these pilgrims track like ban Ganga in katraal so there
Speaker 7: are designated counts where they make donations against proper receipts.
Speaker 7: And apart from that, shrine boat has double locked donation
Speaker 7: boxes kept at variou places where people donate directly. Also
Speaker 7: they put in cash, they put in gold, civil items
Speaker 7: as well in those donation boxes. And those donation boxes
Speaker 7: they are opened by dedicated committees comprising officials of the
Speaker 7: Shrine Board and security personnel headed by officers of the
Speaker 7: rank of sub regional magistrates.
Speaker 1: And how did concerns about misappropriation arise?
Speaker 2: Tell us what happened?
Speaker 8: Exactly what happened is simply shrine board.
Speaker 7: They sent approximately twenty tons of silver which had accommodated
Speaker 7: with them over a period of time, maybe six months
Speaker 7: or a year. They sent it to a government mint,
Speaker 7: I believe in Hyderabad. But it was sent to a
Speaker 7: government mint for melting and extraction of pure silver. Out
Speaker 7: of those items, and what was surprising that only five
Speaker 7: to six percent of the consignment was found to contain
Speaker 7: genuine silver. Out of twenty tons, only five to six
Speaker 7: turned out to be genuine silver and restless metal comprising
Speaker 7: cardium and iron, etc.
Speaker 8: They were cheaper.
Speaker 1: Items, basicly and I don't have the temple authorities and
Speaker 1: the Shrine Board said anything regarding this.
Speaker 7: So far as the Shrine Board is concerned, they are
Speaker 7: yet to issue a formal statement or official statement.
Speaker 8: But many officials they suggest that.
Speaker 7: Devotees might have unknowingly purchased and donated fake silver, this
Speaker 7: impure silver from local vendors. They might have purchased and
Speaker 7: their suspicion is not also revote bases because most of
Speaker 7: the items in silver donated by them are in the
Speaker 7: form of shutters that umbrella type. Usually Devote is offered
Speaker 7: to gods and goddesses in the temples, and these shutters,
Speaker 7: which are available in the market all over the country,
Speaker 7: don't contain more than five percent or six percent silver,
Speaker 7: because shopkeepers may be charging the pilgrims for silver, but
Speaker 7: these are not one hundred percent or ninety percent silver.
Speaker 1: But then is there any record which can be used
Speaker 1: to check whether the silver donated was real or not?
Speaker 2: How are these offerings tracked at the shrine?
Speaker 7: Basically shrine board officials they have a system to collect donations,
Speaker 7: as I have already told you that they collected donations
Speaker 7: against proper seats or even if it is put in
Speaker 7: the donation box, the donation box is doubly sealed. They
Speaker 7: are twenty four by seven under CCTV surveillance and.
Speaker 8: When they are opened, they're opened.
Speaker 7: By teams comprising of shrine board officials, security personnel and
Speaker 7: even high ranking official like Astian from the state government.
Speaker 8: What they do after a particular.
Speaker 7: Time maybe three months, four months, or six months. They
Speaker 7: gather all these offerings which have accummulated over a period
Speaker 7: of time. Way then make the required all these euxercises
Speaker 7: done in presence of the team and under the surveillance
Speaker 7: of CCITY cameras. Then these badges are sent to Government
Speaker 7: Mint basically for melting so that pure silver or gold.
Speaker 8: Is extracted out of them.
Speaker 7: Even Shineboat doesn't hire their own transport for sending these
Speaker 7: items from Katra to the Government Mint. They are sent
Speaker 7: in transport which are working for the Government Mint. Because
Speaker 7: the Government Mint must be transporting things to different parts
Speaker 7: of the country through Shrineboat sends all these donations in
Speaker 7: transport which is arranged by the Government WINT, and even
Speaker 7: the security which goes with those vehicles is also belongs
Speaker 7: to the Government WINT. Shrineboat officials have nothing to do
Speaker 7: with it. The Mint melts these items and conveys that
Speaker 7: this much is purity, This much pure gold or silver
Speaker 7: has been extracted the items sent by the Shineboat and arm.
Speaker 1: What is the allegation exactly who launched the complaint and
Speaker 1: what does it say.
Speaker 7: Basically, a complaint was launched by a local advocate, Depuk Sherma,
Speaker 7: who is practicing in Jammu Shmir and Ladak High Court
Speaker 7: at Jamo. He said that the shrine boat had recently
Speaker 7: sent a twenty tons of silver for melting and only
Speaker 7: five to six percent of those twenty tons came out
Speaker 7: to be real silver, rest of US caadium, iron and
Speaker 7: other cheap items. He suspects basically that the boat is
Speaker 7: have offered pure silver offering or silver and there must
Speaker 7: be some kind of misappropriation at certle level within the
Speaker 7: shrine boat that the silver worth five hundred roots turned
Speaker 7: out to be only twenty thirty routes. He loyed a
Speaker 7: complaint with the crime branch. Later he approached a local
Speaker 7: court in Jemo saying that crime branch did not act
Speaker 7: on his complaint.
Speaker 8: So you interwing.
Speaker 7: So allegation is just to find out that whither is
Speaker 7: there any misappropriation because he feels that pilgrims who will
Speaker 7: offer gold or silver at the shrine will not offer.
Speaker 8: Fake silver to their deity.
Speaker 7: But Shrineboud says that pilgrim may not be offering a
Speaker 7: fake silver to their deity, but they must have unknowingly
Speaker 7: purchased fake silver from the market right.
Speaker 2: And have similar concerns been raised earlier as well.
Speaker 7: Actually, the controversy has occurred this time only, but Shrineboard
Speaker 7: officials say that earlier in the past also silver which
Speaker 7: used to be sent to the government means lesser quantity
Speaker 7: of silver used to be extracted out of the items
Speaker 7: sent to the mint after melting. However, the quantity of
Speaker 7: silver extracted earlier was higher than.
Speaker 8: What they have come across this time.
Speaker 7: Maybe the reason is that prices of silver two have
Speaker 7: shot up, and pilgrims, while purchasing shutters and other silver
Speaker 7: items may be asking for things within a particular price
Speaker 7: tag and the sellers maybe providing them items with more impurity.
Speaker 1: So arul, how do we see this going forward? What
Speaker 1: happens now in the case?
Speaker 7: Recently after this controversy Rose lieuten Governor Monos Sinaw also
Speaker 7: happens to be the ex official chairperson of the Shrine Boat,
Speaker 7: he held a meeting of the entire board members and
Speaker 7: the Shrine Board senior officials. He reviewed the donation, procurement
Speaker 7: and management process. At the same time, the local court
Speaker 7: where the picture has file Lloyd complaint seeking directions for
Speaker 7: registration of a.
Speaker 8: Fire by police.
Speaker 7: The court has also summoned the inquiry Officer of the
Speaker 7: Crime Branch to appear before it on the next date
Speaker 7: of hearing, which is I think the July twenteen nine somewhere,
Speaker 7: and court is also looking in and at the same
Speaker 7: time Shrine board officials at the higher level they are
Speaker 7: also revealed their things.
Speaker 1: And in the end we talk about what senior government
Speaker 1: officials have to say in response to demands for Education
Speaker 1: Minister THERMAINR.
Speaker 2: Pradthans resignation.
Speaker 1: In conversation with The Indian Express, senior government functionaries said
Speaker 1: the Center has no intention of yielding to demands for
Speaker 1: Education Minister Thermainri Pradhans resignation, arguing that it has neither
Speaker 1: denied the lapses nor attempted to evait responsibility. Resident editor
Speaker 1: of The Indian Express's Mumbai newsroom, With Kachopra reported that
Speaker 1: senior government officials called the demand for the Education minister's
Speaker 1: resignation political. They said that the lapses behind the NEAT
Speaker 1: League have been fixed, Admissions under the three largest entrance
Speaker 1: exams NEAT, retest, CWET and JE mains are largely on
Speaker 1: track and the government is open to a debate.
Speaker 2: On the issue in the Parliament. This was the.
Speaker 1: Official sense at the senior level of the government on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: a day after the Juntra month of protests, which started
Speaker 1: with the Neatly controversy and further intensified leading to a
Speaker 1: police crackdown in the heart of the capital.
Speaker 2: The government's argument is that.
Speaker 1: The focus should now be on ensuring a smooth academic session,
Speaker 1: rather than reopening a controversy that it considers administratively settled.
Speaker 1: The center's assessment is that those continuing to lead the
Speaker 1: protests are no longer the primary stakeholders affected by.
Speaker 2: The examination process.
Speaker 1: Officials said that majority of the students have gone back
Speaker 1: to campuses and the fact that Delhi University has admitted
Speaker 1: around seventy two thousand students is an indicator that academic
Speaker 1: activity has resumed. Riteka reported that officials said that in
Speaker 1: a democracy, people have the right to protest and they
Speaker 1: are not asking people not to do that. But who
Speaker 1: is raising the issue, how is it being raised and
Speaker 1: who is behind it are different questions. With regards to
Speaker 1: the leak, the officials said that the system had been
Speaker 1: compromised by the people that they had trusted and post
Speaker 1: the leak.
Speaker 2: They did not hide it.
Speaker 1: Instead, they accepted responsibility and try to fix the situation,
Speaker 1: even as it refuses to concede the demand for resignation.
Speaker 1: The government says it is not opposed to a dialogue
Speaker 1: and discussion in Parliament and it is fully prepared to
Speaker 1: answer every question. You were listening to Three Things by
Speaker 1: the Indian Express. Today's episode was edited and mixed by
Speaker 1: Suraish Babar and produced by Ichas Sharma.
Speaker 2: And me Nihari Kananda.
Speaker 1: If you like the show, then do subscribe to us
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. You can also recommend the
Speaker 1: show to someone you think we'll like it, share it
Speaker 1: with a friend or someone in your family. It's the
Speaker 1: best way for people to get to know about us.
Speaker 1: You can also tweet us at Express podcast and write
Speaker 1: to us at podcasts at Indianexpress dot com.