Sister Lucy Kalapura, one of the five nuns who stood in support of the nun who accused Bishop Franco Mulakkal in a rape case, has been permanently expelled from the Church. This move comes after after the Apostolica Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church, rejected her appeal against her congregation’s decision to strip her of sisterhood.
A letter from the Franciscan Clarist Congregation, dated 12 June, reads that ‘the appeal of Lucy Kalapura is rejected by Apostolica Signatura and the dismissal is confirmed’. With this move by the Vatican, Sister Lucy Kalapura has been dismissed from the Church with finality.
Sister Lucy Kalapura has been ordered by the Franciscan Clarist Congregation Superior General in Ernakulam to vacate the convent within one week.
Kerala: Franciscan Clarist Congregation Superior General in Ernakulam orders Sister Lucy Kalapura to vacate the convent within one week.
Sister Lucy Kalapura had participated in the protest against rape accused former Bishop Franco Mulakkal.
Sister Lucy expressed her dismay at the inequitable decision taken by the Vatican: Speaking to Republic TV Sister Lucy said: “Shocked at her dismissal, she said, “I don’t know what is happening. I am going to tell the truth to the world. The Vatican did not even conduct a trial in my case. I will stay here in the Convent. I don’t know how this is happening.”
She is said to have refused to leave the convent in Wayanad, Kerala, where she is currently living.
Meanwhile, Republic quoted Adv A M Sodder, Association of Concerned Catholics, as saying: “Is this what Christianity is all about? The superior general is rejoicing at Sr Lucy’s dismissal. Better if such people are not nuns forget about being Superior Generals.”
Adv Sodder went on to say that it is a “sad day” for the Catholic Church in India, and he questioned as to “why has the Vatican letter not been written in the language a person understands and that too reaching after a year from its issue?”
How Sister Lucy became a target of smear campaign
It’s worth noting that the Church has waged a smear campaign against Sister Lucy since she supported the protest against rape suspect Bishop Franco Mulakkal. Sister Lucy was expelled from the Franciscan Clarist Congregation (FCC) in August 2019 on grounds of indiscipline and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for her lifestyle ‘in violation of rules’.
A few days later, Sister Lucy filed a complaint to the Vellamunda police in Kerala against a convent in Karakkamala at Mananthavady in Wayanad district. She had accused the convent of illegal confinement.
Sister Lucy in her complaint had said she was not able to attend the holy mass in a nearby church because of the illegal confinement. She found that the gates of the convent locked from outside on Monday after which she called the police, who helped unlock the gates.
The convent later forced her to withdraw two cases she had filed against it and tender an unconditional apology if she wanted to continue living there.
In January last year, the 52-year-old nun accused the authorities of denying food but she said she will remain at Franciscan Clarist Congregation’s convent even if she was starved to death.
Sister Kalapura had said last year, that the harassment against her had increased after her autobiography in which she recounted sexual abuses and aberrations prevalent in convents, was released in December last year. The nun, who belongs to the order of Franciscan Clarist Congregation in Kerala, was hounded for raising her voice against rape-accused Bishop Franco Mulakkal, had narrated her life experiences and spoke about sexual abuse and harassment of nuns in the book titled ‘Karthaavinte Naamathil (In The Name of The Lord)’
Speaking about the harassment meted out at her, Sister Lucy had then expressed hope that the highest head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, would respond favourably to her appeal to the Vatican questioning her dismissal. The Vatican, however, has rejected her appeal and has dismissed her from the Church permanently, shattering her hopes.
Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal has announced that the party will contest 2022 Gujarat Assembly election on all 180 seats. As soon as this news came out PM Narendra Modi, HM Amit Shah, Gujarat CM Vijay Rupani and BJP President J P Nadda called for emergency meeting and personnel of Election Commission of India demanded for raise in their salary.
With eyes on Gujarati NRI voters, Arvind Kejriwal announced that if AAP comes into power in Gujarat then he will turn Gujarat into Delhi, which in turn is changing into London, one of the many favourite destinations of Gujaratis. Hence, Gujaratis should not compare Gujarat with Delhi while criticising Kejriwal but should compare with London, he said.
But it is not Gujarat which need a magician leader like Kejriwal, it is West Bengal. Be it infrastructure, employment, investment, health, education, women safety, fight against poverty etc. no one does media management better than Kejrwal. Even in terms of maintaining democracy, Kejriwal not only allows protestors to block road for months but he also supports them with free ration, free electricity and free wifi.
In West Bengal, we hear the news of riots, violence and killing everyday but with Kejriwal into power in Bengal we can save ourselves from news of such incidences and can turn many small unorganised riots into a big annual organised riots as we see in Delhi.
Kolkata is among one of the most polluted cities and it badly needs Delhi model of transportation, In just 6 years, Kejriwal reduced the total number of buses into half, which were the main cause of pollution. When it comes to education, Bengal badly need Kejriwal, as many West Bengal government school kids get fail in 12th but In Delhi under supervision of Kejriwal government, 100% of govt school kid got passed in 2021.
In health sector also, Delhi is way ahead of other states, while whole India is fighting against 2nd wave, Delhi under Kejriwal govt was already under 4th wave. So much that he also booked slots in newspaper all around India for advertisement. When it comes to governance, he doesn’t let religion come between him and his work that’s why he never interferes in any of hate comments made by his MLA Khan Amanutullah.
Not only West Bengal, but neighbouring states like Bihar, Jharkhand and Assam will also get benefited if Kejriwal comes in power as Kejriwal has habit of interefing more into other states than his own state.
The United States of America has announced that it has donated 80 vials of the Pfizer vaccine to Trinidad and Tobago in order to aid their efforts against Covid-19. A single vial of the vaccine contains 6 doses which means that the USA has donated 480 doses to the Caribbean nation.
Source: US Embassy of the Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago
The US Embassy of the Port of Spain, said, “We believe that every vaccine counts.” Port of Spain is the capital city of Trinidad and Tobago. The population of the country is approximately 1.4 million, which means that it would require 2.8 million doses to inoculate its entire population. The 480 doses will be sufficient for only 240 people, which is about 0.017% of its population.
Along expected lines, the meagre contribution attracted quite a lot of mockery online. A person pointed out that it was the same amount that the Congress party dumps in dust bins daily.
An anchor at NDTV India shared the image of a crowd of people giving a single banana to a sick person lying in a bed as part of a photo-op in order to mock the USA.
Another user pointed out that the USA has donated only 80 vials while the Congress government in Rajasthan has managed to waste over a million.
US donated 80 vials to Trinidad and Tobago with all pomp and show while Our @ashokgehlot51 ji wasted 11.5 lakh++++ doses of Vaccine in Rajasthan alone. https://t.co/JKLceKq6LU
— Abhishek Singh (President, NaMo Bhajan Mandali) (@The_WittyLawyer) June 14, 2021
Another user said that the USA has done a Sonu Sood, an actor who has been accused of wildly exaggerating his Covid relief efforts to earn plaudits.
US doanted 80 vaccine doses to Trinidad & Tobago and tweeted about it. US is Sonu Sood of countries. https://t.co/J0p1vyJQbX
There were Anglophiles in India who had mocked the NDA Government for announcing that it had sent millions of vaccines abroad as part of its ‘Vaccine Maitri‘ initiative. One wonders how they feel about the government of the ‘Promised Land’ boasting about donating a meagre 80 vials of the Pfizer vaccine.
A transgender named Nanu Vishwas, who has more than one lakh followers on social media platforms, was arrested on the evening of June 5 (Saturday) on the charge of hurting religious sentiments. The arrest was made after the Vishwas shared a video on social media where he was seen dancing to the Bollywood song ‘Shukran Allah’ on the premises of a mosque in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
The video, which soon became viral on various social media platforms, enraged some people of the Muslim community, who thought the act to be outrageous. They accused the Bhopal transgender, Nanu Vishwas, of hurting the religious feelings of the Muslim community by adding the song ‘Shukran Allah’ in the video which was shot inside the Masjid.
The song ‘Shukran Allah’ from the Bollywood film ‘Kurbaan,’ starring Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor Khan, was released in 2009 and is mostly about praising and thanking Allah.
Shukran Allah song
The Bhopal transgender social media user was arrested and charged with hurting religious feelings with deliberate and malicious intention under Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code.
Notably, while moderate Muslims generally don’t object to music and dancing per se, many Islamic fundamentalists, like radical Muslim preacher Zakir Naik, view it as un-Islamic or haram.
Speaking about the arrest, Talaiya Inspector D P Singh said that the authorities of Moti Masjid had lodged a complaint, stating that the act of the transgender had hurt their religious feelings.
However, hours after the arrest, Nanu Vishwas was granted bail as the IPC section invoked against him carries a sentence lesser than seven years in jail if convicted in a court of law and in such a situation the accused cannot be kept in police custody for a long period of time.
Following the uproar, Nanu Vishwas pulled down the video and apologised to all his “Muslim brothers and sisters.”
Vishwas stated he didn’t want to offend anyone’s religious feelings. He said he went to Moti Masjid to inquire about the vaccine and shot the video inadvertently inside the premises. He expressed regret for his unintentional deed.
After Punjab and Rajasthan, not all seems to be well with the Maharashtra government which is currently being dragged by the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress trio.
Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole is reportedly miffed after former political strategist Prashant Kishore’s met NCP supremo Sharad Pawar and also praised Shiv Sena.
Reacting to being sidelined, “Congress will contest the Maharashtra Assembly Elections alone. I am ready to be the CM face if the party high command decides,” announced Patole.
Congress will contest the Maharashtra Assembly Elections alone. I am ready to be the CM face if the high command decides: Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole
“We already have announced that we will go solo in all forthcoming local body elections, likely to be held from November, and thereafter the Assembly polls too. We do not want to keep our allies in the dark and ditch them ahead of the polls. We are preparing to go solo and they too are free to do so. The Congress will be the single-largest party in 2024 Assembly polls,” he added.
Congress being sidelined?
Attacking Pawar for calling Sena ‘a party which one can trust,’ Patole said, “We don’t need a certificate from anyone. Even if someone is sidelining us, that doesn’t mean we will be sidelined. By 2024, Congress will only remain the top party in Maharashtra,” said Maharashtra Congress chief.
Congress leaders have extended their support to the state’s party chief. “It will also help in regaining the old glory when the party used to form the government in the state singlehandedly. Patole’s statement is the party’s official stand,” said vice president of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee Arif Naseem Khan.
Veteran party member Rashid Alvi too came out in Patole’s support and said that no one should have a problem with Congress wanting to contest elections alone. “I don’t think anyone should have a problem with Congress fighting local body elections. Every political party has its right to take the decisions and so should Congress party should decide for its own,” he said.
Formidable alliance of opposition parties
Patole’s statement comes after Pawar during NCP’s 22nd foundation day (June 10) celebrations claimed that the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA), will fight the next Lok Sabha and Assembly polls together.
NCP spokesperson Nawab Malik too tried hard to suggest that there is a need to further strengthen the alliance.
“There is a need to form a formidable alliance of Opposition parties against the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) at national level, ahead of the next general elections. Pawarsaheb had himself spoken about the need to have such a national alliance and had said that he would try to bring together all such forces,” Malik remarked.
‘All is well,’ says Nawab Malik
NCP leader Nawab Malik in a recent interview to News18 on Monday said that it is not right to politicize Nana Patole’s statement and that it would be wrong to draw conclusions. He claimed that all is well with the Maha Vikas Aghadi.
However, Patole’s statement seems to have punctured the future plans of the Shiv Sena and the NCP of fighting every election together.
“We don’t have any commitment to contest every election together” says Sanjay Raut
Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut who usually dismisses every claim of internal discord with the Maha Vikas Aghadi said that all are free to expand and strengthen their party.
“It’s not a merger but an alliance of 3 parties, We don’t have any commitment to contest every election together. In local polls, local leaders take the decision. We only strategize for Lok Sabha & state elections,” he added.
As per a report, NCP and Shiv Sena are likely to fight most of the local body elections together while keeping the Congress out.
Alliance to stay reiterates Priyanka Chaturvedi
On the other hand, Shiv Sena leader Priyanka Chaturvedi emphasized that the alliance is here to stay.
Speaking with Times Now, Chaturvedi informed, “Moving forward, what decisions are taken in terms of state elections is a decision that is for their party to take and their party leadership to take. As far as Maharashtra government is concerned we will continue being in an alliance and continue to serve the people of Maharashtra.”
However, Chaturvedi also wished them luck since the decision had already been taken. “We can only wish them all the best if they have come up with such a decision to contest alone in the coming polls,” she said.
“Congress not happy with CM” says BJP leader
BJP leader Ram Kadam asserted that with Patole seeing himself as the Chief Minister face for 2024 state assembly elections, Congress is clearly not happy with the current CM.
“It is a proven fact now that the Congress is not happy with CM Uddhav Thackeray and hence, they have been talking about going solo. It needs to be understood if Congress’ anger is out of the differences between them or because the other two parties are grabbing major share of power,” Kadam remarked.
The sudden change in tone, the contradictory statements and Patole asking “Don’t you want to make Nana Patole as CM in 2024?” to Congress workers has given an interesting turn to Maharashtra politics.
Congress has no say
Congress leaders Balasaheb Thorat, Ashok Chavan and Sanjay Nirpuma have gone on records on multiple occasions to say that the Congress party has had no say in any of the decisions being taken by the Thackeray government. The party has also clarified that the alliance is limited to Maharashtra and that Sena was not part of the UPA. Meanwhile, Pawar and Raut have time and again called for efforts to create a giant alliance to defeat the BJP at the national level.
Upcoming elections
More than 15 municipal corporations (including Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane), 29 of 36 district councils and over 90 municipal councils will go for polls over the next 20 months while the state assembly election is all set to take place in 2024.
Whether or not the alliance will survive till the next state election is for us to see.
In March 2021, Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra through its General Secretary Champat Rai executed an Agreement to buy an additional piece of land for the purposes of additional construction to facilitate pilgrims who would be travelling to the Ram Temple. While the Supreme Court had given the ‘disputed land’ to the trust, land surrounding the Ram Janmabhoomi is owned by various individuals and entities and thus, has to be acquired privately by Temple trust to build facilities that would help the devotees which are expected to visit the temple once it opens. Champat Rai has been on record stating that the land surrounding the temple land was being acquired for several reasons, including Vaastu considerations, building facilities for pilgrims etc.
In this specific case, the 1.208 Ha land was decided to be purchased by the Trust at Rs 18.5 Cr. from one Sultan Ansari and one Ravi Mohan Tiwari. Ansari and the others had in turn bought the same land at just Rs 2 crore from one Kusum Pathak. This particular land in question has been embarked on for acquisition by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra near the Ayodhya railway station to build a facility for the pilgrims who would be visiting the temple after it is constructed.
A controversy erupted after Aam Aadmi Party had used the sale deed of the earlier transaction between Ansari and Kusum and the Agreement to Sell between Ansari and the Trust to allege a “scam” in the procurement of this land by the temple trust. Aam Aadmi Party’s leader Sanjay Singh alleged that Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra through its General Secretary Champat Rai bought a piece of land at an exponentially higher price. Samajwadi Party’s Pawan Pandey made similar allegations.
He alleged that the land value was estimated at Rs.2 crore during the registry, but the Trust made an additional payment of Rs.18.5 crore to the seller just five minutes later. While the transactions were made in the name of Champat Rai, General Secretary, trust member Anil Mishra and Rishikesh Upadhyay, Mayor, Ayodhya were witnesses to the registry. He demanded an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Department (ED) in the matter.
However, when one looks at all the documents and the facts surrounding the case, it quickly becomes clear that a ‘scam’, as alleged by AAP, does not quite exist. Following are the claims made by AAP, the doubts that arose since then and the explanation based on facts of the case and documents acquired by OpIndia.
Claim: Ansari and others bought the land from Kusum on 18 March 2021 and sold it to the Ram Mandir Trust just after 15 minutes. How can the price of the land rise exponentially in just 15 minutes?
Truth: The crux of these allegations stem from the fact that both the documents put up by AAP, the sale deed of the land from Kusum to Ansari and the Agreement to Sell between Ansari to the temple trust were executed on the same day. According to AAP, since both the documents were executed on the same day, in a span of 15 minutes, the entire transaction happened on the same day itself, therefore, the price increase from Rs 2 crores to Rs 18.5 crores points towards a scam.
However, things are not always that simple.
While both the documents were registered on the same day, that doesn’t mean both the sales were conceptualised and also happened on the same day.
In this specific case, the first agreement to sell the land, by Kusum Pathak to Ansari and others had taken place in 2019. On 17.09.2019, Kusum had agreed to sell her land to Ansari at the then-prevailing market rate (Rs 2 crores) and had received a Rs 50 lac advance from Ansari for the same. The Agreement was duly registered.
Agreement to sell between Kusum and Ansari, others
Agreement to sell between Kusum and Ansari, others
Agreement to sell between Kusum and Ansari, others
Agreement to sell between Kusum and Ansari, others
As per the registered agreement, Ansari was allowed 3 year time period to pay the rest of the amount (Rs 1.5 crores) to Kusum for the purchase of the land. The Rs 1.5 crore meant to be paid by September 2022. Since an advance was paid and the agreement was registered, Kusum could not back out of the deal simply because the land prices rose after the 9th November 2019 after the Ayodhya verdict by the Supreme Court. Therefore, she was obligated to sell her land to Ansari at Rs 2 crores itself.
Subsequently, when the Trust decided to buy the property in 2021, it requested Ansari to execute a Sale Deed with Kusum to give effect to the 2019 Agreement to Sell. Consequently, Ansari and Kusum executed a registered sale deed on 18.03.2021 giving effect to the 2019 Agreement to Sell.
Sale Deed between Kusum and Ansari
Simultaneously, Ansari executed the Agreement to Sell with the Temple Trust on the same day. The Agreement to Sell was also registered. This ensured that the Temple secured the land immediately after its title passed on to Ansari.
Agreement to sell between Temple trust and Ansari
Claim: What is the difference between Agreement to Sell and Sale Deed? Differentiating between the two is an attempt to whitewash the ‘scam’
Truth: Various documents are being used indiscriminately to create confusion about this transaction. Journalist Narendra Nath Mishra took to Twitter to claim that the Mayor of Ayodhya had ‘admitted’ to the ‘allegation’ that the same land was registered twice on the same day. This claim was made as some sort of vindication of the allegations of scam.
अयोध्या के मेयर इस आरोप को मानते हैं कि एक ही दिन एक ही जमीन की रजिस्ट्री दो बार 2 करोड़ और 17 करोड़ में हुई। बचाव में तर्क देते हैं कि 2 करोड़ में खरीदने वाले का एग्रीमेंट 10 साल पहले हो गया था लेकिन तब रजिस्ट्री करना भूल गये थे।
— Narendra nath mishra (@iamnarendranath) June 14, 2021
There is a vast difference between the two. The “agreement to sell” contract is one where the property transfer is promised on a future date and a “sale deed” is one that entails an immediate transfer of the property rights. Thus, depending upon the nature of the deal between the buyer and the seller, the covenant is drafted. The rights in the property do not pass conclusively till there is a Sale Deed.
It is pertinent to mention here that Kusum and Ansari had drawn up, executed and registered an “Agreement to Sell” in 2019, not a “Sale Deed”. As mentioned, Kusum had received an advance of Rs 50 lacs for the land and the rest of the Rs 1.5 crores was set to be paid to her by Ansari over a span of 3 years. These details were mentioned in the Agreement to Sell. At that time, Kusum and Ansari executed an “Agreement to Sell”, which essentially means in this case that an agreement was drawn up about the price of the land, the advance given, the remaining amount to be paid and a deadline, by which the payment was to be clear. The title transfer of the land had not happened, and for that, a “sale deed’ would need to be executed (which had not happened after 2019).
Therefore, in 2021, when the temple trust was buying the land from Ansari, the temple trust insisted that a “Sale Deed” is drawn up and registered, where the title itself was transferred from Kusum to Ansari, so the title is not disputed later. This ‘Agreement to Sell’ was consummated when a Sale Deed was executed between the two on 18.03.2021. Ansari’s title in the land was perfected on this date though the transaction was conceptualised and framed prior to Ayodhya Verdict in 2019 in terms of the Agreement to Sell. The price was at the value given in the 2019 Agreement to Sell.
Pertinently, once this title was perfected, the Temple Trust executed an Agreement to Sell with Ansari whereby Ansari agreed to sell the property to the Trust for Rs. 18.5 Cr which is the current prevailing rate of the property. There is NO sale deed yet between Ansari and Temple Trust.
As for the second claim of Mishra, where he says that the Mayor says that the agreement was drawn up 10 years ago but the parties (Kusum and Ansari) had forgotten to “register” the agreement, it is speculated that Ansari’s grandfather (Jaan Mohammad) had a stake in the land since 2011 and even Ansari’s father Irfan Ansari had stake since 2017 at least, however, the details of the same could not be verified.
Claim: The price of the land was Rs 2 crores in 2019, therefore, a purchase of the same land in 2021 at Rs 18 cr points towards a scam since the price of land can’t jump so much in two years
Truth: On November 9th, 2019 the Supreme Court put an end to a 5-century dispute, giving the 67 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi land in Ayodhya to Hindus. A trust was then formed to oversee the construction of the temple and the acquisition of more land to construct allied facilities. The premise of the allegations of “scam” is that the price of the land could not have gone up exponentially in just two years.
However, this claim is also not true.
It is an established fact that the land prices surrounding Ram Janmabhoomi and even in the rest of Ayodhya increased exponentially after the Supreme Court verdict. In December 2019 itself, Forbes had published an article detailing the realty price rise in Ayodhya. In the article, Forbes quotes a property dealer saying that “The rates have increased up to six folds after the Supreme Court passed its verdict”. He claims that after the illegal structure was demolished, many Hindu and Muslim families had sold their property and moved out of Ayodhya, however, now the price of properties have increased exponentially.
In 2019 itself, the property dealer had said, “In a 4-km radius from the proposed Ram temple site, rates have tripled, from Rs 400 per square foot to Rs 1,200 per square foot”. If within a month of the verdict the property rates increased that much, 2 years on when the construction of the temple is well on its way, one can safely conclude that an increase in land price from Rs 2 crores to Rs 18.5 crores is not unfathomable.
It may also be noted that even the land acquisition by the government provides for sale at 4 times the circle rate. Now the circle rate for the property in question is Rs. 5.79 Cr as per the said documents shown by Aam Aadmi Party. The prevailing market rate, thus, would be around Rs. 23 Cr. However, the Temple Trust got the property at 3 times the value which is lesser than even the prevailing market price.
Claim: Why was the trust in such a hurry? Why did they want Ansari and co to make such a huge profit?
Truth: What one has to realise in the case of the Ram Temple construction is that it is a long battle that has been fought for over 5 centuries. The land was embroiled in a legal dispute for years and now, when the Supreme Court finally gave its verdict and the trust got a clear title for the 67 acres of land, they understandably don’t want to get involved in yet another title dispute.
It is pertinent to mention that while the initial sale agreement was made on 17th September 2019, the sale between Ansari and the temple trust was taking place on 18th March 2021. In this span, it is pertinent to remember that even the earlier agreement was not consummated. While the father of Ansari too had a stake in the land, the temple trust wanted everything to be on paper and transparent so that no litigation is brought up after the sale was executed.
The temple trust was ‘in a hurry’ to get a clean title of the land (and therefore insisted that even for the 2019 agreement a sale deed was drawn up and executed). Later, the Trust would have found itself embroiled in another title suit for a small piece of land, which could have hampered the temple construction with the courts getting involved in the entire matter again had the trust not hurriedly executed the sale and registered the sale legally as well.
Claim: Trust could have bought the land directly from Kusum at a cheaper rate instead of buying from Ansari and the company
Truth: The temple trust could have bought the land directly from Kusum if the original sale agreement could have been rescinded. However, since Kusum was already given Rs 50 lacs as advance by Ansari, there was no way that Kusum could have not honoured her agreement, without being liable for huge compensation payable to Ansari and making the property a subject of a long drawn legal battle. She would have to compensate Ansari as per the current market rate which would have eroded her profits anyway. The temple trust could not have bought the land from Kusum directly since Kusum was legally bound to sell the land to Ansari at Rs 2 crores (price agreed upon in 2019, before the Ayodhya verdict) and this would have involved a complicated and long-drawn legal battle.
If Trust had bought directly from Kusum, Ansari would have got a strong legal case against Kusum as well as the Trust. It is pertinent to note at this stage even Ansari had a stake in that piece of land (as is being speculated) and therefore, if the trust had purchased directly from Kusum, the land would have ended up in lengthy litigation.
In any case, Kusum could not have sold the land to the Temple Trust at Rs. 2 Cr anyway because the circle rate of the property is Rs. 5.79 Cr and any sale at a value less than that in 2021 would have been illegal being theft of stamp duty.
It is also amusing that the journalists and Aam Aadmi Party who talk of ethics and propriety wanted Kusum to break a valid and legitimate contractual arrangement to earn more unethical profit.
Essentially, there are the following points that need to be taken into consideration as far as this case is concerned.
The original ‘Agreement to Sell’ was done between Kusum and Ansari in September 2019, for Rs 2 crores at the then-prevailing market rates. (There was no ‘sale deed’ and therefore, no title transfer in the name of Ansari).
At that time, there was no sale deed drawn up and therefore, the title was not clear with Ansari.
By 2021, the price of the land increased exponentially due to the Ayodhya verdict and Bhumi Poojan of Ram Mandir.
The temple trust then decided to acquire that land from Ansari in 2021 for a value even lesser than the market rate in 2021 – Rs 18.5 crores.
When the decision to acquire the land was made, the temple trust insisted that there was a sale deed for the previous 2019 deal as well, so the title of the land was clearly with Ansari before they purchased the land from him.
It is because of this and the temple trust’s need to be transparent, that both transactions, 2019 one between Kusum and Ansari and 2021 one between Ansari and Temple Trust, were executed and registered on the same day in a short span of time.
All the documents are available on UP Government Website online which can be verified.
The temple trust could not have purchased the land directly from Kusum at a cheaper rate because Kusum had, in 2019, got Rs 50 lacs as advance and was therefore obligated to sell her land to Ansari for Rs 2 crores. Any other deviation would have resulted in a legal misadventure and another legal dispute for 5 centuries.
The rise in price is explained by the SC Ayodhya judgement where realty prices shot up in Ayodhya, as evidenced by the Forbes report.
The additional land is being acquired by the temple trust, over and beyond the 67 acres, because the temple trust wants to build allied facilities for the pilgrims and also wants to ensure that there is space to build the Ram Temple in accordance with Vastu norms.
It is, therefore, evident that no “scam”, as alleged by AAP and SP truly exists. The malicious intent to rake up a controversy where none exists clearly points to the fact that several political parties in India are merely trying to create roadblocks in the construction of the Ram Mandir, that Hindus have waited for over 5 centuries.
Adani Group on Monday issued clarification after an Economic Times report claimed that accounts of 3 FPIs owning Adani Group shares were frozen. Terming the report ‘blatantly erroneous’, Adani Group said that the reporting was done to mislead the investing community. The report suggested that NSDL had frozen accounts of three foreign funds – Albula Investment Fund, Cresta Fund and APMS Investment Fund.
Economic Times report had suggested that the National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL) has frozen accounts of three foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) holding shares in the group companies. Subsequently, shares of various companies of Adani Group dropped sharply. The group’s flagship company, Adani Enterprises Limited’s shares dropped by 25%.
Adani Enterprises requested Registrar and Transfer Agent with respect to the status of demat accounts of the foreign funds and received written reply from them clarifying that Demat Account in which the aforesaid funds hold the shares of the Company are not frozen, Adani Enterprises added.
Why Adani shares fell
Earlier in the day, the shares of various Adani group companies fell sharply after media reports suggested the three FPIs which collectively have a major stakeholding had not fulfilled the KYC (Know Your Customer) norms. Together, Albula Investment Fund, Cresta Fund and APMS Investment Fund own shares worth Rs 43,500 crore in Adani Enterprises, Adani Green Energy, Adani Transmission, and Adani Total Gas.
The Adani Group shares had been doing phenomenally last one year and had outperformed benchmarks by massive margin. However, following the reports of NSDL freezing its FPI accounts, the share prices fell sharply. However, Adani Group has now clarified that no such accounts are frozen.
Chess Grandmaster Vishwanathan Anand has issued a statement after Indian billionaire and Zerodha co-founder Nikhil Kamath cheated to win a game against him at a charity event. Vishwanathan Anand said that he expected the game to be played in an ethical manner.
Anand said, “I just played the position on the board and expected the same from everyone.” It was an obvious dig at Kamath who later issued a statement essentially admitting that he had cheated during the match.
Yesterday was a celebrity simul for people to raise money It was a fun experience upholding the ethics of the game.I just played the position onthe board and expected the same from everyone . pic.twitter.com/ISJcguA8jQ
During the match, Kamath had a 98.9% accuracy rate while Vishwanathan Anand managed 92.7%. The Grandmaster played White while India’s youngest billionaire played Black. Since the victory, Kamath has admitted that he had outside help.
Chess.com has banned Kamath’s account for violating its fair-play policy. In his statement, Kamath admitted that he had help from “people analyzing the game, computers and the graciousness of Anand Sir himself to treat the game as a learning experience.”
The Euro 2020 football championship is finally underway after being delayed by a year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 24 European countries are participating in the 16th edition of the championship, vying for the coveted trophy. Apart from the football and the fanfare surrounding it, there is another aspect that has gained significant attention: The Black Lives Matter protests and England taking the knee as a symbol of protest against racism.
The symbolic gesture by the England team has attracted significant criticism with fans often booing their own team when the players take the knee ahead of the game. Supporters of the gesture tend to brand everyone booing the gesture as a ‘racist’ but there are a great many nuances involved they often overlook.
As much as they scream that the gesture has nothing to do with politics or the BLM, it cannot be denied that it has its roots in the BLM movement. Critics oppose the move because they consider it a political statement at a place which should not have any political demonstrations. The controversy has continued since the friendlies ahead of the tournament but the English FA and Gareth Southgate have continued emphasising that the team will take the knee ahead of games.
England players take the knee before their match against Croatia at Euro 2020 (Source: Skysports)
The FA issued a statement ahead of the friendly against Romania where it said, “Ahead of today’s game, our players will once again take the knee as a show of solidarity with the Black community, including members of our squad who themselves continue to suffer abuse on a regular basis.” They added, “Please support them, just as we know you will once the game begins.”
The England coach had said, “Some people decide to boo. I think those people should put themselves in the shoes of those young players and how that must feel.” “If that was their children, if they are old enough to have children, how would they feel about their kids being in that sort of situation,” he added.
In an open letter, Southgate said, “I know my voice carries weight. Publicly I am the England men’s football team manager. I have a responsibility to the wider community to use my voice, and so do the players.” He added, “It’s their duty to continue to interact with the public on matters such as equality, inclusivity and racial injustice, while using the power of their voices to help put debates on the table, raise awareness and educate.”
Many other teams at Euro 2020 have refused to take the knee
Despite such incantations, fans booed the team when the players took the knee ahead of their match against Croatia in their first game of the tournament. Croatia had already announced that their players would not take the knee. England won the match after Raheem Sterling scored the only goal.
The Croatian Football Federation had said earlier that they will not impose any decision on the players. It had said, “The Croatian Football Federation believes that the players have a right to their own opinion on these topics, and that they also have a right to choose whether they want to engage in any activity.”
After the Croatian team jointly decided to not take the knee ahead of their friendly against Belgium, the CFF stated, “The Croatian Football Federation respects their stance on this and will not impose taking the knee as an obligation for Croatian players, as this gesture does not hold any symbolic ties to the fight against racism and discrimination in the context of Croatian culture and tradition.”
While those taking the knee have the right to do so, it is rather bewildering that they accuse everyone opposed to the gesture of being racist. By that implication, it would mean that even the Croatian national team is racist and all the teams, practically every other team than England, is racist for not taking the knee. Is that the implication that the English team and its coach wishes to make?
Czech Republic, too, announced that their players will not be taking the knee at the Euro 2020. “We want to fully concentrate on football and the sports side of things,” their head coach Jaroslav Silhavy had said.
“I understand that these are important topics for the whole of society, and my team and I obviously condemn any and all displays of racism. But we talked this through back in March, agreed on our own show of support for the fight against racism, and we do not intend to change anything about that decision,” he had added.
The gesture attracted attention ahead of the match between Belgium and Russia as well. The Belgian team was booed when they took the knee, Russia did not. Netherlands ahead of their match against Ukraine did not take the knee as well. Hungary is not likely to take the knee either given their Prime Minister’s public statements against the gesture.
Belgian players took the knee, Russians did not at their match at Euro 2020 (Image Credit: AFP)
It is to be remembered here that there is no way of denying the gesture is intimately linked to the BLM Movement. The movement itself is hugely controversial with its leaders often taking extremely problematic stands and their members accused of inciting and participating in riots. Under such circumstances, it comes as no surprise that the gesture has attracted so much criticism.
The arguments against taking the knee
One of the foremost criticisms of the gesture is that it does not, in any way, help to fight the actual menace of racism. No one could possibly argue that taking the knee convinces actual racists to have a change of heart.
It was this reason that had prompted Crystal Palace player Wilfried Zaha to announce that he will not take the knee before the Premier League matches. ““I’ve said before that I feel like taking the knee is degrading and stuff because growing up my parents just let me know that I should be proud to be black no matter what and I feel like we should just stand tall,” he had said.
“Because I feel like taking the knee now, it’s becoming… we do it before games and even sometimes people forget that we have to do it before games,” Zaha had stated before adding “We’re isolating ourselves, we’re trying to say that we’re equal but we’re isolating ourselves with these things that aren’t even working anyway, so that’s my stand on it.
Furthermore, the cultural context in which such gestures find relevance is limited to the United States of America and parts of Western Europe. It has no relevance at all in large parts of the world. Therefore, an attempt to universalise a western problem reeks of cultural imperialism.
At the end of the day, the gesture is relegated to meaningless virtue-signaling without any positive impact on the ground. On the contrary, it only further sows seeds of division within the world of football. Racism exists and it is terrible but opposition to a political gesture cannot be branded as a racist act.
One of the fundamental problems with the affair is that those taking the knee and their supporters refuse to acknowledge that it is indeed a political gesture. Unless that is accepted, a common ground is unlikely to materialize in the near future.
On June 13 (local time), Sky News Australia reported that new evidence has emerged that proves the Wuhan Institute of Virology kept live bats in cases. The new footage shows the inside of the facility where the bats were kept. The video thus disapproves the denial of the World Health Organization investigators who had kept calling the theory of live bats in the lab a “conspiracy”.
Journalist Sharri Markson from the Australian has shared the information.
EXCLUSIVE: The Wuhan Institute of Virology kept live bats in cages, new footage from inside the facility has revealed.
This disproves denials from World Health Organisation investigators like Peter Daszak who claimed the suggestion was a “conspiracy”.https://t.co/XGokKUmWzS
In May 2017, a 10-minute official Chinese Academy of Sciences video titled “The construction and research team of Wuhan P4 laboratory of Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences” was released to mark the launch of the new BL4 lab. It discussed the security precautions that had been taken in case accidents happen. It also talked about the clashes with the French government during the construction of the said lab.
What’s in the video
The video featured interviews with the lab’s leading scientists and showed bats being held in a cage inside the lab. In one scene, a scientist was seen feeding a worm to a bat. Notably, the WHO investigation report about the origin of the pandemic did not mention that the bats were being kept inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It stated, “The animal room in the P4 facility can handle a variety of species, including primate work with SARS-CoV-2.”
The video, as suggested by The Australian’s report, states that they faced difficulties behind-the-scene during the construction of the lab. It was initially a joint venture of the French and Chinese governments, but it did not pan out that way. It said, “Our collaboration with France on this project went through more than a decade of intense clashes resulting from our different cultural backgrounds and understandings.”
After the lab was completed, French scientist and officials were removed from the lab that sparked concerns among French intelligence over the type of biological research China may do in such labs. Shi Zhengli, the Bat Lady, was also featured in the video. A bat was seen hanging off her hat. At the same time, the narrator said, “Over more than a decade, Shi Zhengli’s research team has collected more than 15,000 bat samples in China and many countries of Africa, searching for the origins of SARS, as well as isolating and characterising many new viruses.”
The US had raised concerns
In the US government’s investigation of the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, the officials questioned how a naturally occurring virus from bats that are found in the Yunnan Province in southwestern China could possibly travel to Wuhan without leaving any traces. Yunnan is a 20-hour drive away from Wuhan. The revelation that bats were kept in the lab is important as it may fill the missing gap of the origin of the virus and its spread. A possibility arises that a lab employee might have got infected from a diseased bat kept in cages at the lab.
Calls for closing Chinese wet markets
When the pandemic first hit the world, the world leaders had called for the closure of the Chinese wet markets, which was believed to be selling bat meat. Notably, bats were not sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale market but were kept at the BL2 and BL3 labs at Wuhan lab. At that time, zoologist Peter Daszak, a member of the WHO investigating team, called the theory a “conspiracy”.
In a tweet in December, he said, “No BATS were sent to Wuhan lab for genetic analysis of viruses collected in the field. That’s not how this science works. We collect bat samples, send them to the lab. “We RELEASE bats where we catch them.”
Daszak’s organisation EcoHealth Alliance had funded coronavirus research in the WIV, as revealed in recent reports.
In another tweet, Dr Daszak said, “This is a widely circulated conspiracy theory. This piece describes work I’m the lead on and labs I’ve collaborated with for 15 years. They DO NOT have live or dead bats in them. There is no evidence anywhere that this happened. It’s an error I hope will be corrected.”
The WHO report failed to mention there were bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – and the investigative team did not ask!
Interestingly, he changed his stand this month and admitted Wuhan lab might have kept bats inside its premises. He also admitted that the WHO team did not ask the Wuhan lab about it. He said, “We didn’t ask them if they had bats. I wouldn’t be surprised if, like many other virology labs, they were trying to set up a bat colony. I know it’s happening in labs here and in other countries.”
The video was discovered by the researchers, identified as DRASTIC, investigating the origin of the pandemic. Jesse, the digital archivist of the group, stumbled upon the video. The coordinator of the group codenamed Billy Bostickson had talked about the evidence that shows bats were kept in Wuhan lab.
