Syamala Nagar and Sanjeevaiah Nagar ROBs sanctioned, says Union Minister Pemmasani
Union Minister of State for Rural Development Dr. Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar told The Hindu that the Ministry of Railways has sanctioned Road Over Bridges (ROBs) at Syamala Nagar and Sanjeevaiah Nagar in Guntur, with a total funding of Rs. 160 crore.
Dr. Pemmasani stated that the entire cost will be borne by the Central Government, with no financial obligation on the part of the State. He emphasized that these approvals fulfill promises made to the public during the elections, adding that necessary infrastructure for Guntur is being addressed one by one.
He further said that including these two latest approvals, a total of seven ROBs have now been sanctioned for the Guntur parliamentary constituency—Sankar Vilas, Gaddipadu, Pedapalakaluru, Nandivelugu, and Mangalagiri being the others. Together, these projects account for Rs. 572 crore in central funding, with the Centre taking full financial responsibility.
Dr. Pemmasani also met with South Central Railway General Manager Arun Kumar Jain in Hyderabad on Friday, expressing gratitude for his support. He requested the GM's cooperation in resolving drainage and traffic issues near three existing bridges in Guntur city.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
ONGC chief urges timely arbitration as Meghwal backs institutional model
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on Saturday pitched for institutional arbitration, saying it was part of Indian culture after the ONGC chairman urged making arbitration proceedings timely and not "timeless". The government has been pushing for institutional arbitration instead of ad hoc arbitration asserting it is efficient and more result oriented. The industry on the other hand feels arbitration in India is slow, inefficient and plagued with red tape. Singapore, London and Dubai have emerged as hubs of international arbitration to settle high stakes, high value commercial disputes. Addressing a conference on institutional arbitration here, the minister also said that organisations should be ready to be flexible and rigid, depending on the need of the hour, to ensure that its interests remain protected and it contributes towards nation building. Meghwal felt that officers should be willing to take risk and not follow the beaten track to ensure financial interests of their organisation. Meghwal lamented that while arbitration was part of Indian culture, the concept got "disturbed" somewhere and other countries became hub of international arbitration. He hoped that India will soon emerge as the new hub of international arbitration. Earlier, speaking on the occasion, ONGC Chairman Arun Kumar Singh said time is money, and hence there was a need to make the procedure of arbitration timely and not "timeless". He said settlement of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner was quintessential for the business ecosystem. He also felt that there was a need to make arbitration "more corporate and less legal". Singh said disputes largely arise out of three reasons: executives being excessively conservative who pass the buck to save their skin; excessive optimism of vendors who take contracts at low bids and subsequently fail to complete the job and create disputes to wriggle out of the situation; and rigidity in contracts, which make completing tasks difficult. Law Secretary Anju Rathi Rana said the government has been consistently trying to make arbitration and mediation processes faster and easier. She recalled a recent directive from the Department of Legal Affairs, which pushes for reducing judicial interventions and using institutional and not ad hoc arbitration. The chairman of India International Arbitration Centre, Justice (retd) Hemant Gupta, said the mindset has to change for parties to go for institutional arbitration, rather than an ad hoc system to settle commercial disputes. He said people will have to choose institutional arbitration to understand its benefits over court-appointed arbitration.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Indira Gandhi and the making of Emergency
Almost 50 years to date, on June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court delivered a judgement that came as a thunderclap. Justice Sinha held Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt practices during the 1971 general elections, voiding her membership of Parliament and barring her from holding elective office for six years. Thirteen days later, Indira Gandhi got President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to issue a proclamation under Article 352 of the constitution declaring an internal Emergency. This enabled her to inaugurate a spell of avowedly authoritarian rule, incarcerating her political opponents, muzzling the press, casting aside the fundamental rights, and mauling the Constitution. Five decades on, the Emergency continues to haunt Indian democracy as a memento mori (reminder of one's mortality). This is hardly surprising, for many leaders who bestride contemporary politics — from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin — were shaped in the crucible of the Emergency. The Union government has declared its anniversary on 25 June as 'Samvidhan Hatya Divas'. Public debates on the Emergency also tend to generate more heat than light. These focus all but exclusively on Indira Gandhi's decision to impose the Emergency: Was it solely to ensure her continuance in office or was it principally a response to the Opposition's drive to unseat her in the wake of the high court's verdict? How credible was her claim that there was a grave internal threat abetted by external powers? Inasmuch as Indira Gandhi was responsible for imposing the Emergency, these questions will continue to be probed. Yet understanding her concerns and intentions is not the same thing as causally explaining the onset of the Emergency. As I argue in my new book, such an explanation must bring together changes and developments at the levels of structure, conjuncture and event. Start at the structural or systemic level. Political systems should be understood not merely as agglomerations of leaders, parties or social groups, but with reference to two system-wide components that influence all actors. The first is the institutional arrangement of political actors according to their differing functions and relative power. In the Indian case, this is the functional separation of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The second component is the constituent rules — procedures, principles, norms, understandings — that regulate political competition: The 'rules of the game' of parliamentary democracy. The Indian political system underwent a significant transformation between 1967 and 1975. This transformation occurred on both systemic dimensions. Importantly, this transformation preceded the Emergency. The years between 1967 and 1973 witnessed a dramatic shift in relative power towards the executive, especially the office of the prime minister. This began with the Congress party's poor showing in the general elections of 1967 — an event that catalysed a power struggle within the party, culminating in Indira Gandhi's move to split the Congress in 1969. This left the prime minister in stronger control of her party. Soon, Indira Gandhi gambled in calling for elections a year ahead of schedule. And her party won a stunning victory in March 1971. This was followed by India's military triumph over Pakistan later that year. This, in turn, propelled the new Congress to a dramatic win in the state elections of 1972. None of these could have been predicted, but cumulatively they cemented Indira Gandhi's hold over her party. The parliamentary party ceased to operate as a subtle check on the executive. On the contrary, the party was now beholden to the prime minister for its political survival. The political opposition had coalesced against the Congress ahead of the 1967 elections and had reaped the dividends of the first-past-the post system. Yet their Grand Alliance in 1971 proved spectacularly ineffective and unravelled after their abysmal performance. However, the opposition parties' decision to go alone in the state assembly elections of 1972 also failed to revive their fortunes. The political opposition was now a blasted heath and the parliament's position turned merely topographical. This extraordinary strengthening of executive power enabled Indira Gandhi to challenge the functions and powers of the judiciary, culminating in the assertion of prime ministerial authority by the supersession of judges and the appointment of a pliant chief justice in the Supreme Court in April 1973. A tame Supreme Court would go on to endorse the executive's actions during the Emergency. These dramatic power shifts were accompanied by changes in the collective beliefs and expectations of political actors about the rules of the game of parliamentary democracy. As the game grew increasingly competitive from 1967 onwards, its rules, procedures, and norms were frequently cast aside in pursuit of power. Horse-trading of legislators, shifting party allegiances, weak and unstable governments, misuse of constitutional powers to undermine governments and dissolve legislatures — all became accepted features of the Indian political landscape. This dimension of systemic change was accelerated by the global conjuncture; processes that played out concurrently and impinged decisively on India. In particular, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates and the oil shock triggered by the Arab-Israel war of 1973 touched off a tidal wave of global inflation. The Indian economy experienced its most serious bout of inflation in the 20th century. Massive popular protests in Gujarat, Bihar, and elsewhere were a direct consequence of this economic crisis. The student movement's success in ejecting the Congress government in Gujarat and the upsurge in Bihar under Jayaprakash Narayan led the main opposition parties to regard extra-parliamentary mass agitation as the political route to weaken the Congress party, given their inability to humble it in the hustings. This shift in beliefs and expectations occurred across the political spectrum. In April 1974, LK Advani told the Jana Sangh's general council that 'dethroning an elected government by extra-constitutional means had acquired legitimacy'. The Socialist Party adopted a resolution later that year: 'Since the capacity of the parliamentary system to achieve reform and renewal from within is getting severely limited, extra-constitutional action and popular initiative become absolutely necessary.' EMS Namboodiripad of the CPI(M) wrote that 'they do not accept the position that every issue must be solved only through constitutional means'. Above all, the prime minister herself had ceased to believe in the intrinsic value of democracy. As she wrote to Yehudi Menuhin soon after imposing the Emergency, 'Democracy is not an end. It is merely a system by which one proceeds towards the goal. Hence democracy cannot be more important than the progress, unity or survival of the country.' Against the background of this systemic change and conjunctural crisis came the events of 12 June 1975 that threatened the prime minister's continuation in office. The lurch towards authoritarian rule was now unavoidable in the sense that the conditions needed to prevent it were no longer obtained. Indira Gandhi was, of course, culpable for the decision to impose the Emergency. But its onset was caused by this larger structural transformation of Indian politics. This was, in turn, the outcome of a collective jettisoning of the rules of the game by the Indian political elite. This perspective on the origins of the Emergency when juxtaposed with its disastrous course and its turbulent aftermath invites a historical verdict in the vein of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet: All are punished. Srinath Raghavan is the author of Indira Gandhi and the Years that Transformed India. The views expressed are personal.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Visakhapatnam gears up for International Yoga Day event on June 21
The City of Destiny is undergoing a major facelift ahead of the International Yoga Day celebrations, scheduled for June 21. The Beach Road stretch between the Naval Coastal Battery and Park Hotel Junction, the main venue for the event, is being beautified extensively. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Ministers, Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, and Deputy Chief Minister K. Pawan Kalyan and other dignatoaries are sheduled to participate in the grand event. The Beach Road, which underwent a beautification drive ahead of the G-20 summit in 2023, is now being adorned with innovative installations and sculptures. Among the highlights are a floral-themed structure and a giant paintbrush topped with greenery, symbolising the State government's 'Harithandhrapradesh' initiative. Painting and refurbishment works are being undertaken on sculptures, medians and grills to give them a vibrant and fresh appearance of the tourist spot. This apart, the Horticulture Department of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) has been taking up works like planting new saplings, trimming and refreshing existing greenery to showcase a rejuvenated environment. Not just the RK Beach stretch, the beautification drive covers The Park Hotel Junction to Bheemunipatnam. This corridor is witnessing removal of dead trees, replacement of defunct streetlights, improvements to street lighting, footpaths, road repair works and general maintenance. Preparations are also under way at the Andhra University Engineering College Grounds, which have been identified as an alternative venue in case of rain. If the weather holds, the grounds may still host Yoga Day activities alongside the main event. Key officials, including Principal Secretary and Special Officer for the event, M.T. Krishna Babu, IT Minister Nara Lokesh, and a Central inspection team, have already reviewed the ongoing arrangements. Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu is scheduled to visit Visakhapatnam on June 16 to personally assess the preparations along with other senior officials.
