Govt aims to turn India into food basket of the world
Addressing farmers at the ICAR-IIHR campus in Hessarghatta in Bengaluru city outskirts, as part of the Viksit Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan, the Minister indicated that the Centre is looking beyond feeding the 145 crore people of India. The Union Government would collaborate with State Governments, agricultural universities, Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs), farmers, and scientists to draw a comprehensive roadmap to achieve this goal.
He said the Viksit Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan initiative was aligned with the Prime Minister's vision of a Viksit Bharat (developed India) by 2047. The campaign has a motto of ensuring development of agriculture sector in the country, he explained.
As part of this, the 'Lab to Land' initiative has been launched, involving over 16,000 scientists who are engaging with farmers across the country to provide scientific knowledge and support. 'Over the last 10 days, 1,896 teams have interacted with about 9 lakh farmers across 8,188 villages,' he said.
In Karnataka alone, more than 70 interdisciplinary teams comprising scientists and officials from agriculture and allied departments were visiting farms daily under this programme, the Minister said. These teams were recording feedback directly from farmers to shape need-based, problem-oriented agricultural research programmes. So far, 639 teams have visited 2,495 villages, engaging with 2,77,264 farmers in Karnataka, he said.
He said the Viksit Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan envisioned 'One Nation, One Agriculture, One Team'. To ensure farmers receive fair prices for their produce, the Centre would bear transportation cost of agricultural produce under the Market Intervention Scheme (MIS), he said.
During the event, the Minister felicitated seven outstanding farmers from Karnataka — Ratnamma, Gopal Gowda, Padmini Gowda, H.K. Raghu, Mangalamma, Mahesh H.N., and Sreenivas — for their significant contribution to agriculture.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
30 minutes ago
- India Today
Why Modi govt drew the line with online gaming bill
On August 19, when the Union cabinet cleared the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, the sense of urgency was unmistakable. Within 24 hours, the draft was tabled in Parliament, underscoring how swiftly the Narendra Modi government wanted to push through one of the most ambitious regulatory overhauls in India's digital the language of consumer protection and youth welfare lies a story of political calculation, social pressure and economic disruption that could reverberate across industries far removed from consider this to be step down from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Independence Day announcement last year, wherein he aspired for India to become the leader in the global gaming market. Modi had then said that India must leverage its rich ancient legacy and literature to come up with Made in India gaming products. He added that Indian professionals must lead the global gaming market, not just in playing but also in producing the red line has been drawn to keep real-money games out of the ambit, argue those in the government. For months, the government had been under pressure to respond to a surge of distress stories linked to real-money gaming. Parents complained of teenagers running up debts on borrowed digital wallets; young professionals saw their salaries wiped out in a few nights of high-stakes play; and across small towns, reports of suicides tied to online gambling losses began to appear with disturbing regularity. The public perception that gaming platforms were becoming a social menace—akin to alcohol or narcotics in their addictive pull—was gaining ground. State governments, particularly in the South, had tried to legislate bans, only to have them struck down by courts. The Centre's reluctance to intervene had begun to look like vacuum was filled by the Sangh Parivar's affiliates, who brought ideological pressure to bear on the government. The Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), in particular, made online gaming a moral economy issue, portraying it as a threat to household savings and traditional argument resonated within the BJP ecosystem: speculative play was not creating productive capital but draining families, and worse, it was ensnaring India's youth. In closed-door consultations, Sangh functionaries invoked parallels with colonial-era opium and liquor trades, which they said had weakened communities from within. By the time the Cabinet note circulated, the push from the ideological right had become impossible to bill itself is sweeping. It bans real-money games outright and criminalises their endorsement by celebrities, athletes and social media influencers. It arms regulators with extraordinary powers, including warrantless search and seizure, allowing officials to enter premises, seize servers and freeze accounts without prior judicial oversight. Penalties run into crores, with provisions for jail time for repeat offenders. For a sector that had operated in regulatory grey zones for years, the shift is nothing short of impact on India's celebrity economy is immediate. Over the past three years, endorsements for gaming platforms had become a major source of income for cricketers, Bollywood stars and digital influencers. That revenue stream vanishes overnight, leaving talent agencies scrambling. For venture-backed firms, many with global capital riding on India as one of the largest growth markets, the bill is potentially built around fantasy sports, poker, rummy and other real-money formats face outright extinction. Investors had poured billions into the sector, confident that India's courts would protect skill-based gaming from outright bans. That bet has now in one of those paradoxes that define India's markets, several listed tech and gaming-related stocks rallied after the Cabinet decision. Investors seemed to calculate that the elimination of grey-zone competition would consolidate opportunity in segments the government deems permissible—casual, skill-based or educational gaming. Some even speculated that global studios, wary of the unpredictability, would step back, leaving domestic firms to dominate what remains of the field. In that sense, capital was already reorienting to profit from the regulation even as hundreds of start-ups faced an existential the Modi government, the calculus is clear: the political dividend outweighs the economic cost. Positioning itself as a guardian of family welfare against predatory industries has appeal across caste, class and geography. In semi-urban and rural constituencies, stories of young men pawning jewellery or defaulting on loans after online gaming binges have spread the southern states, where courts had overturned state-level bans, the Centre's decisive intervention allows the BJP to claim ownership of a cause that regional parties had fumbled. By centralising regulation, the government not only resolves a messy federal dispute but also asserts Delhi's primacy over a digital sector once seen as beyond traditional symbolism goes further. Around the world, governments are moving against online gaming excesses. China has imposed strict limits on youth play, Europe is tightening gambling-related regulations, and the US has seen state-level crackdowns. India's permissive stance had begun to look tabling the bill, the government aligned itself with this global wave, signalling that its digital economy is not a laissez-faire frontier but one subject to moral and political oversight. As one economist who has tracked the sector for years put it, 'This is a blunt instrument, but perhaps a necessary one. When markets fail to self-regulate and the social costs pile up, the state asserts itself.'advertisementStill, the long-term consequences remain uncertain. India's digital economy has thrived on global investor confidence, and sudden, sweeping prohibitions risk undermining that perception of predictability. Venture capital funds have already begun reassessing their appetite for Indian start-ups, worried that other high-growth sectors could face similar crackdowns. Even firms in permissible categories will find themselves grappling with compliance costs and the chilling effect of regulators armed with warrantless powers. For entrepreneurs, the bill is a reminder that in India's political economy, social stability can trump for the ruling BJP, the political upside is too attractive to ignore. The legislation dovetails neatly with the party's broader narrative of moral guardianship: protecting the young, safeguarding families and curbing what it portrays as corrosive modern temptations. In campaign rallies, expect to hear references to the bill as proof that the Modi government will not allow 'digital addiction' to destroy households. The fact that it was tabled in Parliament so swiftly after Cabinet approval underscores its role as a political project, not just a regulatory the clash between capital and culture, the government has chosen culture. In the tug of war between states and courts, it has reasserted central authority. In the balance between innovation and morality, it has sided firmly with morality. Whether the online gaming bill becomes a model for future digital regulation or a cautionary tale of overreach will depend on its implementation. For now, what it represents is unmistakable: the assertion of the state's right to police not just the economy but the moral fabric of Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill is, therefore, more than a piece of legislation. It is a statement of intent from a government that thrives on decisive gestures. The message to investors is blunt: profits cannot come at the cost of social order. The message to voters is sharper still: the state will intervene, aggressively if necessary, to protect families from what it sees as corrosive forces. In a season of high political stakes, the bill has become both policy and politics, an emblem of how the Modi government views the trade-offs between growth, morality and to India Today Magazine- Ends
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Money gaming industry may be forced to fold as Centre goes all in on ban
Days after it was figuring out how to deal with a steep GST burden, the real money gaming industry has been hit with a legislative tsunami that could effectively eliminate it entirely Mumbai Listen to This Article Only days after the industry was bracing for a steep tax burden, India's real money gaming (RMG) sector is now in intensive care as the Centre moves to impose a blanket ban via legislation. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 - which was tabled in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday - has raised the stakes for the sector dramatically. The legislation has gone all in to erase the sector altogether, citing its role in driving players into financial distress and enabling unlawful practices such as fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion. 'Why was there a revised GST
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Law and evidence, not headlines should shape policy
Recently, shocking statistics in a media report prompted the Supreme Court of India to take suo moto cognisance of the stray dog 'menace'. Relying on this 'disturbing' data, the Court registered a writ petition, issued notice to the NCT government and MCD, and appointed an amicus curiae. On August 11, the Court ordered the immediate rounding up of nearly 10 lakh stray dogs in the national capital region (NCR) into shelters. Though couched in the language of humane treatment, the absence of the resources required for such endeavour makes its workability questionable. Thereafter, the petition was placed before a larger three-judge bench on August 14, due to an apparent conflict with existing precedent. While judgment on stay over the August 11 order is reserved, the issues merit deeper consideration. stray dog (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The figures cited from a newspaper report in the July 28 order (2,000 dog bites in Delhi per day, i.e., 60,000 per month) are at variance with the official data cited in the August 11 order, showing only 3,196 bites in January 2025, around 2,000 per month in 2024, 1,500 in 2023, and under 500 in 2022. Thus, the data prompting the Court's action seems to be 30-times higher than official numbers. Even before the larger bench, the Solicitor General relied on another newspaper report and a WHO model projecting 18,000 rabies deaths annually, ignoring India's official figure of 54 deaths in 2024. Questionable statistics notwithstanding, no critic denies the existence of dog bites or overpopulation, nor suggests that the streets are where dogs belong. The real question is: How does the law already address this issue, and why has its implementation failed? India has a legal framework: The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 which mandate a Capture-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release (CNVR) programme for population control, and make relocation or permanent institutionalisation of stray dogs impermissible. Yet, the legal advisor to the Union of India discredited these Rules as offering 'no solution', which is baffling since the Centre itself enacted them. The amicus went further, suggesting that stray dogs' very presence infringes the fundamental rights of citizens. However, the Court's order does not engage with the validity of the ABC Rules, perhaps because no constitutional challenge was raised. Instead, by implication, the order seemingly rewrites them. One thus fears whether the widely reported oral observations like 'for the time being forget about the rules', though not officially recorded, appear reflected in the outcome of the order. Thus, without the Centre exercising its power to amend the Rules, or the Court exercising power to strike down the Rules, the Order ostensibly brings in a policy change and inadvertently creates a parallel regime for Delhi NCR, while contradictory provisions of the ABC Rules continue to operate in Delhi and across India. Other jurisdictions keen to follow similar suit, are thus faced with conflicting legal regimes to operate within. If existing law already governs the matter, why has it failed? Though government and MCD remained conspicuously silent on this, the Court acknowledged systemic failure. Normally, this would invite stern, time-bound directions to enforce the Rules. However, the Court directed removal of all stray dogs to shelters (many of which are still to be constructed). Experts additionally doubt the workability of this order, given the enormous cost. Ironically, the same authorities who failed at sterilisation are now entrusted with greater responsibility of permanent institutionalisation. The obvious question arises: Would it not have been more prudent to direct them to achieve 100% sterilisation instead, and guaranteeing a population control in the immediate future, in a humane manner? Besides existing law, the order also risks being at variance with previous binding rulings, including the Supreme Court's decision in AWBI v. PEST (2024), where the Court prohibited indiscriminate culling and mandated adherence to the existing legislation (i.e. ABC Rules). By not referencing this judgment, the Order seemingly conflicts with it, as also the Constitution Bench ruling that if a bench disagrees with precedent, it must refer the matter to a larger bench. Moreover, AWBI v. PEST had indicated that conflicts between ABC Rules and local laws are best handled by high courts aware of local issues. Indeed, the Delhi High Court was already seized of the issue in Pratima Devi v. MCD, with a collaborative stakeholder process underway to evolve a policy. Not only did counsel before the Supreme Court fail to apprise the bench of this, they also failed to mention that the MCD itself had recently told the High Court that sterilisation under the ABC Rules was the only viable solution. Domain expertise, had it been presented, may have prevented such contradictions. Most troubling perhaps was the Court's refusal to hear animal welfare organisations, rejecting their interventions en masse during the August 11 hearing. Though the written order records that they would be heard later, the very same order has proceeds to issue interim directions adverse to their interests, without hearing them. Incidentally, the amicus' suggestion of adoption of strays (initially rejected by the Court) found its way into the final order, ostensibly because welfare groups pointed out that abandonment is a criminal offence and would prevent sham adoptions. This small example reveals how vital stakeholder participation is. The rise in stray dogs and dog bites is undeniably concerning. But judicial intervention, even with best of intentions, must rest on verified facts, statutory consistency, and inclusive participation. By relying on questionable data, not addressing the ABC Rules or established precedent, or domain expertise, the August 11 order risks setting a dangerous precedent: Where headlines, not law or evidence, shape policy. This article is authored by Kanak Bose, Supreme Court advocate, New Delhi.
