BHEL urged to expedite equipment supply for Polavaram and Lower Sileru projects
In a review meeting held on Wednesday, Mr. Vijayanand requested BHEL to prioritise the completion of Polavaram and Lower Sileru projects.
BHEL CMD K. Sadashiv Murthy assured the government of strict adherence to the supply schedules and to expediting deliveries for both projects to ensure their timely commissioning. He also agreed to investigate the causes of repeated rotor failures at Dr. NTTPS Stage-V (800 - MW unit) and take prompt corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted power supply during the peak summer. Additionally, he promised to resolve the pending issues related to Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station at the earliest.
AP - Genco officials said with 12 large Kaplan turbine units (each 80 - MW), PHEP was the first of its kind unit in India as they were capable of handling a substantial discharge of 335 Cumecs. Upon completion, the project would generate 960 MW of hydroelectric power, supplying approximately 23 million units per day. The estimated annual revenue from it was pegged at Rs.1,250 crore calculated at a unit price of Rs.5.
As far as the Lower Sileru project is concerned, the AP - Genco officials said it was aimed at enhancing the peak power capacity of the existing powerhouse and involves the addition of two 115 - MW units to the existing four units. This extension would play a crucial role in supplying power during the peak summer when the unit price exceeds Rs.10. Besides, these additional units would support the grid during emergencies.
AP - Genco MD K.V.N. Chakaradhar Babu, Directors M. Sujaya Kumar (Hydel), P. Ashok Kumar Reddy (Thermal), BHEL Director (Engineering, Research and Development) S.M. Ramanathan and Executive Director Pankaj Rastogi were among those present.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
14 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Leaving a top Trump administration post? The president may have an ambassadorship for you
AP White House (File photo) Diplomacy may be soft power, but in President Donald Trump's administration, it's also lately a soft landing. National security adviser Mike Waltz was nominated as United Nations ambassador after he mistakenly added a journalist to a Signal chat discussing military plans. Trump tapped IRS Commissioner Billy Long to be his ambassador to Iceland after Long contradicted the administration's messaging in his less than two months in the job. And Trump last weekend named State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce as deputy representative to the U.N. after she struggled to gel with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's close-knit team. The new appointments can be viewed as consolation prizes for leaving a high-profile post in the Trump administration following rocky tenures. But they also reflect the degree to which Trump is trying to keep his loyalists close, even if their earlier placements in the administration were ill-fitting. Breaking with the reality TV show that helped make Trump a household name, the Republican president is not telling his top appointees "You're fired!" but instead offering them another way to stay in his administration. "It's not like 'The Apprentice,'" said John Bolton, another former Trump national security adviser, who has since become a Trump critic. Trump's first term featured more firings During his first White House tenure, Trump was new to politics, made many staffing picks based on others' recommendations and saw heavy staff turnover. Trump has stocked his second administration with proven boosters, which has meant fewer high-profile departures. Still, those leaving often are the subject of effusive praise and kept in Trump's political orbit, potentially preventing them from becoming critics who can criticize him on TV - something that didn't happen to a long list of former first-term officials. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, and Trump can nominate anyone he likes, though many ultimately require Senate confirmation. Typically, top ambassadorships are rewards for large donors. "It is a tremendous honor to represent the United States as an ambassador - which is why these positions are highly coveted and reserved for the president's most loyal supporters," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. "Mike Waltz, Billy Long and Tammy Bruce are great patriots who believe strongly in the America First agenda, and the President trusts them fully to advance his foreign policy goals." From 'glitch' to a new job Waltz's days appeared numbered after The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg revealed in March that Waltz had added him to a private text chain on an encrypted messaging app that was used to discuss planning for a military operation against Houthi militants in Yemen. Trump initially expressed support for Waltz, downplaying the incident as "a glitch." Roughly five weeks later, the president announced Waltz would be leaving - but not for good. He portrayed the job change as a cause for celebration. "From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation's Interests first," Trump posted in announcing Waltz's move on May 1. "I know he will do the same in his new role." Vice President JD Vance also pushed back on insinuations that Waltz had been ousted. "The media wants to frame this as a firing. Donald Trump has fired a lot of people," Vance said in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News Channel. "He doesn't give them Senate-confirmed appointments afterwards." Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush before becoming Trump's national security adviser in 2018, called it "a promotion to go in the other direction" - but not the way Waltz went. "The lesson is, sometimes you do more good for yourself looking nice," Bolton said of Trump's reassignments. Bruce also picked for a UN post Ironically, Bruce learned of Waltz's ouster from a reporter's question while she was conducting a press briefing. A former Fox News Channel contributor, Bruce is friendly with Trump and was a forceful advocate for his foreign policy. Over the course of her roughly six months as spokesperson, she reduced the frequency of State Department briefings with reporters from four or five days a week to two. But Bruce had also begun to frequently decline to respond to queries on the effectiveness, substantiveness or consistency of the administration's approaches to the Middle East, Russia's war in Ukraine and other global hotspots. She told reporters that special envoy Steve Witkoff "is heading to the region now - to the Gaza area" but then had to concede that she'd not been told exactly where in the Middle East he was going. Trump nonetheless posted Saturday that Bruce did a "fantastic job" at the State Department and would "represent our Country brilliantly at the United Nations." Former U.S. deputy U.N. ambassador Robert Wood, who served as deputy State Department spokesman during President George W. Bush's term and as acting spokesman during President Barack Obama's term, voiced skepticism that Bruce's new position was a move up. Wood later became the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Conference on Disarmament through the rest of the Obama's tenure and all of the first Trump administration. "Given the disdain in MAGA world for anything U.N., it's hard to imagine Tammy Bruce's nomination as U.S. Deputy Representative to the U.N. being seen as a promotion," referring to Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement. During her final State Department briefing on Tuesday, Bruce said Trump's announcing that he wanted her in a new role "was a surprise," but called the decision "especially moving as it allows me to continue serving the State Department, to which I'm now quite attached." 'Exciting times ahead!' Then there's Long, a former Republican Missouri congressman, who was the shortest-tenured IRS commissioner confirmed by the Senate since the position was created in 1862. He contradicted administration messaging on several occasions. Long said last month that the IRS' Direct File program would be eliminated. An IRS spokesperson later indicated that it wouldn't be, noting requirements in the tax and spending law Trump has championed. The Washington Post also reported that Long's IRS disagreed with the White House about sharing taxpayer data with immigration officials to help locate people in the U.S. illegally. After learning that Trump wanted him in Reykjavik, Long posted, "Exciting times ahead!" White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to say Tuesday why Long was removed as IRS chief and being deployed to Iceland. "The president loves Billy Long, and he thinks he can serve the administration well in this position," she said. 'These things usually don't work out' The soft landings aren't always heralded by Trump. Former television commentator Morgan Ortagus, who was a State Department spokesperson during Trump's first term, is now a special adviser to the United Nations after serving as deputy envoy to the Middle East under Witkoff. Trump foresaw that Ortagus might not be a good fit. He posted in January, while announcing her as Witkoff's deputy, that "Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson." "These things usually don't work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing it for them," Trump added. "Let's see what happens." Ortagus lasted less than six months in the role.
The Wire
17 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Liberal International Order: From Wilsonian Internationalist Racism to Trump's Anti-Globalist Racism
Inderjeet Parmar By framing globalisation as detrimental to American workers, Trump cynically exploits domestic workers' discontent while preserving the core of U.S. elite power. US President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. Photo: AP/PTI There is a widespread feeling and even considered view that US President Donald Trump is an aberration, an outlier, possibly crazy. He is seen by many as outside the American tradition, an exception within an exceptional national. But appearances are deceptive. The roots of Trumpism lie in the very American system and international order – rooted in the presidency of the liberal Woodrow Wilson in World War I – he claims to abhor. That's why under Trump, America is only recalibrating its attitude to that order, not rejecting it, and preparing to coercively confront the tides of change wherever they arise. There's a particularly moving scene in the movie Gandhi (1982). In it, an American journalist who witnesses British colonial violence against peaceful protestors, breathlessly phoned in to his news desk that, 'Whatever moral ascendancy the West once held was lost here today. India is free, for she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give and she has neither cringed nor retreated.' That West has changed in many ways – its stewardship passed from Britain to the United States. It evolved from direct colonialism to imperialism by another name (a liberal international order). But it remains violent and hierarchical. However, the liberal international order (LIO) and Western moral authority are (once again) withering away before the world's eyes. Nowhere more is this evident than in backing Israel's illegal war of genocidal terror in Gaza. But it is hardly the first time that the most modern weapons known to humankind have been turned onto peoples of the Global South. History is littered with millions of black and brown bodies. Despite that, the LIO is often heralded as a rules-based system promoting democracy, free markets, and global cooperation. But in practice it is, and always was, a widely contested construct – at home and internationally – rooted in the interplay of ideology, power, hierarchy and exclusion. Wilsonianism and Trumpism are but two complementary faces of American power that still leads the international system. Roots of Trumpism at the creation Its origins lie in the early 20th century, particularly in the vision of US President Woodrow Wilson, whose internationalism was deeply imbued with class and racial hierarchies. Wilson was considered a progressive intellectual. He went on to become President of Princeton University, elected Governor of New Jersey, before entering the White House in 1913 and serving two consecutive terms. A progressive liberal, Wilson carried out a sustained policy of racial re-segregation of the federal government. His administration demoted or fired thousands of Black federal workers. It racially segregated offices, restrooms, entrances to buildings, setting back Black rights and reversing gains after the American civil war (1861-65). Wilson's tenure could hardly have been otherwise given the founding principles of the United States, and the reconstruction of de facto and de jure racial hierarchies after the civil war. By 1896, the US Supreme Court had sealed the deal with its 'separate but equal' ruling in Plessey vs Ferguson that cemented the constitutionality of racial segregation that lasted for over six decades. Today, this hierarchical order is sustained, albeit in a transformed guise, through the anti-globalist rhetoric and policies of Trumpism. The liberal international order, built on Wilsonian racist internationalism, has been reconfigured by Trumpist anti-globalism which reinforces American hegemony through white-superiority driven nationalism and selective global engagement. The conclusion from this is bleak: the United States has turned its back on racial and gender equality, civil and workers' rights as it dismantles federal programmes. And it is evident that the US and its Western allies are not ready to accept that the world is moving towards multipolarity, and are willing to fight to maintain their dominance in world politics. Hence, western militarisation is intensifying in an era the US has declared as one marked by the 'return of geopolitical competition'. Prior to that era, the West had the field pretty much to themselves. That's called order. This is not history repeating itself first as tragedy and later as farce; it remains tragic, dangerous and deadly. It may be withering but the liberal international order and its American guarantor are far from dead. Wilsonian internationalism and its racial underpinnings Woodrow Wilson's vision for a new world order, articulated during and after World War I, laid the ideological and institutional foundations for the liberal international order. His 'Fourteen Points' and advocacy for the League of Nations promised self-determination, collective security, and global governance. However, Wilson's internationalism was not a universalist project but one steeped in classist (anti-communist), racial and civilizational hierarchies. Wilson's belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority and domestic policies – such as the resegregation of federal offices – reflected a worldview that prioritized white, Western dominance. Wilson's internationalism was inherently exclusionary. His concept of self-determination was selectively applied, largely reserved for European nations while denying colonised peoples in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean the same rights. The League of Nations, while ostensibly a global institution, was dominated by Western powers, with non-white nations marginalised or excluded. Japan's attempts to insert a racial equality clause into the League's charter was rejected, Pan-Africanists and other anti-colonialists, ignored. Wilson's vision aligned with the broader imperialist framework of the time, where the United States, as an emerging power, sought to reshape the world in its image – white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, capitalist. This racialised internationalism was not an aberration but a foundational feature of the liberal international order, embedding hierarchies of race and power into its institutions and norms. It continues to this day. The liberal international order, as it evolved through the 20th century, reflected and institutionalised these hierarchies. The creation of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system (the IMF and World Bank), and NATO reflected American leadership but also perpetuated a system where Western dominance was normalised. These institutions, while promoting liberal values like free trade and 'democracy', served American strategic and economic interests, marginalising non-Western voices and reinforcing global inequalities. The Wilsonian legacy, therefore, was not merely the spread of liberal ideals but the construction of a global order that upheld American hegemony under the guise of universalism. Trumpism and the anti-globalist turn The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a seeming rupture in the liberal international order. Trump's 'America First' doctrine, with its rejection of multilateralism, disdain for international institutions, and emphasis on national sovereignty, appeared to challenge the very foundations of the order Wilson helped establish. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, and his criticism of NATO and the World Trade Organisation signalled a retreat from global leadership. Yet, a closer examination reveals that Trumpist anti-globalism does not dismantle the liberal international order but reconfigures it to serve American interests in a new geopolitical and geoeconomic context. Trump's anti-globalism is less a rejection of American hegemony than a reassertion of it through nationalist means. His policies have imposed tariffs on China, the EU, UK, Israel, among others, and weaponised all aspects of US power. They reflect a desire to maintain American economic dominance in an era of multiple rising and competing powers, not just China. By framing globalisation as detrimental to American workers, Trump cynically exploits domestic workers' discontent while preserving the core of U.S. elite power: its ability to shape and profit from global economic and security arrangements. His administration's focus on 'fair trade' and 'energy dominance' ensures that the United States remains a central player in global markets, even as it eschews multilateral frameworks. Moreover, Trump's foreign policy retains key elements of the liberal international order, particularly its militarised and hierarchical nature. His administrations increased defence spending, strengthened alliances with authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, and maintained U.S. military presence in strategic regions. The 'Indo-Pacific strategy' aimed at countering China's rise is a continuation of (Obama-era) efforts to contain rival powers, a hallmark of the liberal international order since its inception. Thus, Trumpism's anti-globalist rhetoric masks a deeper continuity: the preservation of American primacy through selective weaponised engagement with the world. The paradox of continuity and change The transition from Wilsonian internationalism to Trumpist anti-globalism reveals a paradoxical dynamic, maybe even a secret, at the heart of the liberal international order: its adaptability to different ideological guises while maintaining American dominance. Wilson's vision, rooted in racial hierarchies, established a system where liberal ideals were selectively applied to serve U.S. interests. Trump's anti-globalism, while rhetorically opposed to Wilson's multilateralism, reinforces this system by prioritising American sovereignty and economic power. Recall that it was Wilson who first used 'America First' as his clarion call in World War I. Both Wilson's and Trump's approaches, though seemingly divergent, share a common thread: the use of ideology to legitimise American hegemony. America First, Forever. This continuity is evident in the role of elites in shaping both eras. Wilson's internationalism was driven by a cosmopolitan elite—academics, policymakers, and business leaders—who saw American leadership as essential to global stability. Trump's anti-globalism, while populist in tone, was similarly supported by a coalition of corporate elites, military-industrial interests, and nationalist ideologues who benefited from tax cuts and deregulation. My own research on American power emphasises the role of elite networks in sustaining hegemony, and Trump's era is no exception. The liberal international order, whether under Wilson's idealist garb or Trump's shrill nationalism, remains a project of elite power, adapting to domestic and global shifts while preserving U.S. dominance. Conclusion: A resilient but contested order The liberal international order, built on Wilson's (and the West's) racially-charged internationalism, has proven remarkably resilient, adapting to the challenges of Trumpist anti-globalism. While Wilson's vision embedded racial and civilisational hierarchies into the global system, Trump's policies have reoriented it toward overt nationalism without dismantling its core structures. Both approaches, in their own way, uphold American hegemony, revealing the order's flexibility in accommodating ideological shifts while maintaining power hierarchies. Yet, this resilience comes at a cost. The liberal international order faces growing challenges from rising powers, domestic discontent, and demands for greater inclusivity. The racial underpinnings of Wilson's vision continue to haunt the order, as marginalised nations and peoples question its legitimacy. Similarly, Trump's anti-globalism, while appealing to some domestic audiences, risks alienating allies and undermining the multilateral frameworks that have sustained American power. Understanding the liberal international order requires recognising its contradictions: a system that promotes universal values while perpetuating exclusion and domination. Its future depends not on ideological purity but on its ability to navigate the tensions between global ambition, nationalist retrenchment, domestic resistance, and increasing multipolarity in world politics and economy—challenges that Wilson's heirs and Trump's successors must confront. And they believe in and are preparing for massive and sustained coercive confrontation, everywhere. Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George's, University of London, a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and powers of the US foreign policy establishment. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Take our capital back': Nearly 800 troops deployed by Donald Trump arrive at DC; 23 individuals arrested overnight
AP file photo Around 800 National Guard members employed by US President Donald Trump began arriving in Washington, DC, on Tuesday as the new law enforcement presence in the nation's capital started to take shape. City police and federal officials, signalling cooperation, took the initial steps to reduce crime in what Trump described, without substantiation, as a lawless city, reported AP. This comes after Trump announced on Monday that he is placing the Washington, DC, police department under federal control and deploying the National Guard. "This is Liberation Day in DC, and we're going to take our capital back," Trump said at a White House press conference. The administration indicated that National Guard members were expected to begin patrolling the streets Tuesday night, as per a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Army also said that no details have been released yet regarding the specific areas the troops would cover, an anonymous source was quoted as saying by AP. The deployment resulted in 23 arrests overnight, as per White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Charges included homicide, drunk driving, gun and drug offenses, and subway fare evasion, though she did not provide additional details. Trump warned on Sunday that homeless individuals in the city would 'have to move out, IMMEDIATELY,' adding that they would be relocated 'far from the Capital.' Over 70 homeless encampments have been removed by the US park police over the past five months, Leavitt said, reported AP. DC mayor Muriel Bowser vowed to cooperate with the federal officials assigned by Trump to oversee the city's law enforcement, while emphasizing that the police chief would continue to lead the department and its officers. 'How we got here or what we think about the circumstances, right now we have more police, and we want to make sure we use them,' she said. Official data from the US Justice Department shows that violent crime in Washington DC is at a 30-year low, but Trump disputes the figures, alleging manipulation. He also criticized a $3.1 billion renovation of the Federal Reserve headquarters, labeling it wasteful. Bowser argues that the ultimate authority lies with Trump, leaving local officials little choice but to comply and manage the situation as best as they can. She noted that as long as Washington remained a federal enclave with limited autonomy under the DC Home Rule Act, it will be vulnerable to such interventions. Trump is the first president to invoke Section 740 of the law to assume control of Washington's police for up to 30 days during emergencies.
