Mucchonipalli Village Rallies Behind Indian Army: Locals Display Patriotism Amid Rising Border Tensions
Gadwal: In a heartfelt show of patriotism and solidarity with the Indian Army, residents of Mucchonipalli village in Gattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal district, adorned the home surroundings of Kompati Bhagat Reddy with national flags. The event was a tribute to the sacrifices and valor of Indian soldiers, especially in light of recent developments at the border.
The occasion witnessed the presence and address of former Jogulamba Gadwal district BJP President S. Ramachandra Reddy, who strongly condemned the recent terrorist attack in Poonch, Jammu and Kashmir. Speaking to the gathered citizens, he emphasized the unity of the nation behind its armed forces.
"In response to the heinous terrorist attack in Poonch, the Indian Army has carried out retaliatory strikes today, targeting 10 terrorist hideouts in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). This action reflects the nation's determination to combat terrorism," Reddy said.
He further added, "Every Indian stands united with our brave soldiers. If the situation escalates into war, every Indian is ready to stand firm against Pakistan. POK is an integral part of India, and so is Jammu and Kashmir—this is a sentiment deeply rooted in the hearts of every citizen."
The gathering, organized to show support for the army and condemn terrorism, was marked by the hoisting of national flags and patriotic expressions. Locals like Shivareddy, Nagappa, Sanjeev Reddy, Bhagat Reddy, KR Ashok, tailor Shiva, R. Krishna, and others actively participated in the event.
This event stands as a symbol of the unwavering support the Indian Army receives from every corner of the nation, including remote villages like Mucchonipalli, where the spirit of nationalism burns bright.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Jubilee Hills BRS MLA Maganti passes away at 62
Hyderabad: Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLA from Jubilee Hills, Maganti Gopinath (62), passed away at a corporate hospital in Hyderabad on Sunday morning. He had been undergoing treatment after suffering a massive heart attack on June 5. He is survived by his wife Sunitha, son Vatsalyanath, and daughters Akshata and Disira. He was cremated at the Jubilee Hills Mahaprasthanam on Sunday evening. Gopinath, who also served as president of the BRS Greater Hyderabad unit, was born in Hyderguda. He began his political career with the Telugu Desam Party in 1983. A prominent youth leader in his early years, he served as the president of the TDP's youth wing, Telugu Yuvatha, from 1985 to 1992, and also held the post of TDP Hyderabad district president. Gopinath entered the legislative assembly for the first time in 2014, winning on a TDP ticket from Jubilee Hills. He later joined the BRS and retained his seat in the 2018 and 2023 assembly elections. In the most recent election, he defeated former Indian cricket captain Mohammad Azharuddin by a margin of 16,000 votes. In his administrative journey, Gopinath worked as a director of the then Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) from 1987 to 1989. He also served as a member of the Hyderabad district consumer forum. Chief minister A Revanth Reddy, BRS president K Chandrashekar Rao, working president KT Rama Rao, former minister T Harish Rao, and several other political leaders expressed condolences on Gopinath's demise. Union minister G Kishan Reddy, TPCC president Mahesh Kumar Goud, assembly speaker G Prasada Kumar, ministers Ponnam Prabhakar and D Sridhar Babu, and several MLAs also paid their respects. With Gopinath's passing, Telangana is set to witness another by-election within the next six months. The last bypoll in the state was held in June 2023 for the Secunderabad Cantonment seat following the death of BRS MLA Lasya Nanditha. Congress candidate Sri Ganesh won that election.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Railway convention raises alarm over rising accidents, urges govt action
Hubballi: Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) president K Hemalatha said despite the alarming rate of accidents and the huge loss of lives, the Union govt is not showing any concern for protecting the lives of the people and staff who are crucial to the operation of the trains. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking at a state-level convention on 'Safety in Railways', organised by the CITU, here on Sunday, Hemalatha stated that the BJP-led NDA govt failed to take effective measures to prevent train accidents. "Instead, govt is blaming the railway employees for these accidents and taking punitive action against them," she added. The number of train accidents, which was 21 in 2020-21, increased to 34 in 2021-22, 48 in 2022-23, and 81 in 2024-25. The Railway Minister informed Parliament in 2022 that 469 passengers were killed and 1,275 injured in train accidents during 2014-19. "The trains running in suburban areas are experiencing accidents too. Hundreds of track maintainers died. More than 450 trackmen died in . Rail travel, an affordable mode of travel used by more than 2 crore people every day, must be made safe," Hemalatha demanded. S Varalakshmi, Karnataka President, CITU, said to oppose the privatisation of railways and address the safety concerns of passengers and employees, the organisation is creating awareness. "Govt is casting a negative shadow on employment. Contract employment is increasing, and due to this, accidents are increasing. The employees are working overtime, which is leading to accidents. Every passenger should travel safely, and govt should provide this," she urged. General secretary Meenakshi Sundaram demanded that the Union govt should ensure the safety of railway passengers and provide safe working conditions for railway employees. "Govt should stop the privatisation of in any form and improve facilities for passengers on trains, with senior citizens receiving concessions like women and other demands," she said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "In Karnataka, eleven station division-level conferences should be completed by the end of July-August 2025. The union should conduct publicity at railway stations in a way that reaches train passengers in the districts and launch a public signature campaign for a petition to be submitted to the Prime Minister after the conference. In Oct, a protest will be organised at railway stations," she said.
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Montek Singh Ahluwalia at Idea Exchange: ‘China challenged the US and what's been unleashed is the weaponisation of tariffs'
Montek Singh Ahluwalia, economist and former Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission of India, on India's way around US tariffs, the need for less protectionism and why trade with China needs careful thought. The session was moderated by Ravi Dutta Mishra, Principal Correspondent, The Indian Express. Ravi Dutta Mishra: In the multiple trade negotiations that are underway, India may be forced to lower tariffs. Will there be an adverse effect on our manufacturing as we open ourselves to Western countries? Are we ready for it? President (Donald) Trump has described India as a tariff king and, on this, he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said our tariffs are too high and they should be reduced in our own interest. This process was started in the 1991 reforms and was continued through successive governments, including the Vajpayee government. The economy did well in this period and our export performance also improved. Unfortunately, the policy was reversed in 2017 and our exports have done poorly since then. Indian manufacturers are uncompetitive due to a variety of reasons such as high tariffs, bureaucratic controls and logistical deficiencies. However, this means they are not competitive at the current exchange rate. Depreciating the currency is one way of making them more competitive. It helps those competing against imports and also helps exporters. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: How do the Trump tariffs impact the world and the US economy? That's a difficult question to answer since we don't know where the tariffs will end. The US has imposed 10 per cent on all imports and 25 per cent on selected items. In addition, it has imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs at different levels for different countries. The reciprocal tariffs have been paused until July 9 pending the outcome of negotiations that are underway with different countries. We don't know how far these tariffs will be modified. However, it is quite clear that the US will end up with protection levels much higher than in recent memory. It will also have different tariffs for the same product for different countries, which is a departure from the most-favoured nation principle. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Do you think there is any rational basis for what the US is doing? Frankly, no. The US has been concerned about two developments for some time but what they are doing is not the solution for either of them. One long-standing concern, which resonates with the US public is the hollowing out of old industries in the so-called 'rust belt'. This is actually a natural process in which industries that had become uncompetitive have shifted to other countries that are more competitive. Against this so-called 'loss', the US has also gained massively because it became dominant in the financial sector and the tech sector. Both sectors have produced an expansion in high-paying jobs. The logical way to deal with the loss of jobs in the older industries would have been to encourage new industries, where the US is competitive, to expand in the states being hollowed out and to reskill the workforce in these areas. On US tariffs | The US tariff action has created a great deal of uncertainty. This may well be a deliberate tactic to give theM a bargaining advantage by unsettling trading partners but this will affect investment, including FDI The second US concern is the remarkable rise of China. They clearly thought that integrating China into the global system would make China more like other democracies but that didn't happen. China has gained enormously from globalisation but it has also explicitly stated a confrontational objective of challenging the US economically, technologically and also militarily. The Biden administration had adopted a targeted policy of constructing trade restrictions on China, especially in sensitive areas. What has been unleashed now is a much broader weaponisation of tariffs against many more countries. This seems to be driven by the spurious argument that they are running trade surpluses. Most economists don't think one should worry about bilateral trade balances, and especially trade balances in goods while leaving out services. The US/EU position exemplifies the problem. The US is running a large trade deficit against the EU in goods but it has an almost equal sized surplus in services. Taking goods and services together, the US/EU trade is balanced. The problem is the US is not just any country. If the US were a small country, then we could point out its errors and simply refuse to enter into any such negotiations. But the US is the largest economy in the world and the largest importer and therefore, in principle, the largest market. So you cannot ignore it. Therefore, even though their position is not theoretically defensible, most countries are trying to see what they can get out of it through negotiation. Ravi Dutta Mishra: Our unwillingness to open up to China led to us abandoning RCEP. Can we just open up to the West and ignore RCEP? That's a very important point. Asia is where most of the growth will take place in the future and we should certainly not ignore it. As you said, we backed out of signing the RCEP agreement because our producers lobbied that they can't compete if duty-free access is given to Chinese imports. It is true that China is widely regarded as a non-transparent trader which subsidises its exports in many ways. However, if this was the main reason for not signing RCEP, we should apply to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trade Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This grouping does not include China but covers other important Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea. We have free trade agreements with these countries but they are old and limited arrangements. We need to enter into deeper arrangements which also align behind the border standards. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: We have seen more than three decades of reforms and liberalisation. Are there certain sectors which still require protection? Whenever an industry is unable to compete with imports, it will demand for protection to save it. If you go into it more deeply, they will tell you they can't compete because they have to cope with poor infrastructure, poor logistics, high cost of power, burdensome procedures, poor access to bank credit, etc. All this is true. But the solution lies in rectifying these problems, not conceding protection. That takes time but that is why lowering of duties in a free trade agreement is always phased over time. We have to realise that while granting protection is a simple solution, it only helps the industry protected, while hurting others, all of whom suffer from the same handicaps. Exports are particularly badly hit by protection because it only raises the domestic cost structure, making exports less competitive. I should point out that our exports have done very poorly in the past five years and this also the period when we started raising import duties. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What do you think of the PLI type schemes which are designed to encourage the domestic industry. Do you see this as tantamount to protection or are they stepping stones for the industry to prepare for global competition? PLIs are a way of protecting the industry by extending a subsidy. It has the advantage of providing support without raising the price of the protected product as would happen if duties were raised. The cost is borne by the budget. The example of East Asia is often cited to support the idea that industries can be encouraged through subsidy in the initial stages, which allows them to become competitive. In the East Asian cases, the success of the industry support effort was ultimately judged on whether they became internationally competitive. If they failed to penetrate export markets as expected, the subsidy was withdrawn. Our PLI schemes do not have any such linkage with export performance. On trade with China | where China has become the only source (of import), There is a case for increasing domestic production. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources It is, perhaps, too early to pronounce judgment on PLIs, but we should conduct a serious independent evaluation of these schemes. This task should not be performed by the ministry running the scheme. It should be entrusted to another body, such as NITI Aayog or the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, for an independent view. Ministries always support whatever schemes they are running or at most suggest some marginal improvements. That's why third party evaluation is needed. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What should be our trade policy vis-à-vis China? China is the second-largest economy in the world and under normal circumstances we should view it as a potentially important trade partner. However, it is also true that we have serious security concerns about China. We have to address these different types of problems. First, there is the problem of non-transparent subsidisation which may hurt our domestic industry. This is best handled by an efficient and speedy system of imposing countervailing duties to counter unfair trade practices. The second problem relates to situations where we have become unduly dependent upon China, enabling it to hurt our economy by denying us exports that we want. The pharmaceutical industry is an example. We pride ourselves on being the pharmacy of the world because we have genuine strength in formulations and other products. However, we have become excessively dependent on China for supplying active pharmaceutical ingredients. This is not a case for rejecting Chinese imports as such but we should reduce dependence on them by developing our own sources domestically or if there are other supply sources available, we should diversify. There is a case for increasing domestic production, and introducing a PLI, if necessary. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources. A similar problem arises in the case of various rare earths and minerals, which are needed for our energy transition and where we don't have domestic reserves. China has already weaponised this monopoly. The solution in such cases clearly lies in building access to these items wherever they are available from other countries and perhaps encouraging our own industry to build production capacity elsewhere. A third problem arises in the case of products, particularly advanced electronic products that can be infested with malware. For example, the use of untrusted products in key systems such as the telephone system, the air traffic control system, the electric grid, the banking and payments system, etc. present the possibility of a cyber attack which could impose serious damage. Cyber attacks are happening even without compromised equipment and we need heightened vigilance in these areas but compromised products increase our vulnerability. In such cases, countries have to resort to some combination of relying on domestic supply or importing only from 'trusted sources'. I would emphasise that these considerations should not lead to extreme positions excluding all Chinese imports. Solar cells are a good example. Solar cells are not like chips in the sense that you cannot interfere with the functioning of a solar cell from the outside. China has built capacity more than double the world's current demand for solar chips, as a result of which the price of solar chips has collapsed globally. Importing these chips will allow us to expand our solar generation capacity rapidly and reduce the cost of solar electricity. Should we benefit from this or insist on domestic production of chips at a higher cost? We need to evolve a carefully tailored policy that allows us to derive the benefits of trade with China, without making us vulnerable to pressure. On indian tariffs | President Trump has described India as a tariff king and he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said they should be reduced in our own interest Sandeep Singh: While the Trump tariffs have caused a disruption, is there some positive effect for Indian manufacturing? The only possible positive effect we can expect is if the US wants to discourage imports from China-centred supply lines and shift to supply lines based on more trusted partners. If India is treated as a more trusted partner, then it creates an opportunity. Of course, the extent of benefit will depend upon whether we can attract the FDI and technology needed to fit into the altered supply chain. Some shifting out of China has been taking place but the countries that benefited were Vietnam and Malaysia, not India. A good example of what looks like a success is the possibility that India-made iPhones will serve a large part of the US market. I have seen reports of President Trump saying he wants Apple to produce all iPhones for the American market domestically. That amounts to insisting on 'reshoring' rather than 'friend shoring'. We should explain that iPhones produced in India are only assembled in India and almost half the value consists of IP which accrues to Apple. The phone also has thousands of components produced in other countries. The assembly stage is actually a low-tech activity, although it creates a lot of jobs which is important. It also gives us a hold from where we could progressively supply more components. If assembly is performed in the US at US wages, it will substantially increase the cost of the phones. Hopefully, these considerations will be used by Apple to defend its India strategy. Aggam Walia: You mentioned deregulation and now the ball is in the states' court. They have to lead the charge. How do you assess this view? Also, many states, both publicly and privately, have been asking for a greater share of the Centre's taxes. Do you think that is tenable? As far as deregulation is concerned, there has to be both Centre and state agenda. The Central government has said they are setting up a committee to recommend a deregulation package. I hope we see early outlining of the proposed agenda, a discussion of what is proposed and then an early implementation. The scope for deregulation at the state level is also great. It would be a great idea if some CMs took the lead and set up committees that could help identify critical areas where deregulation can be implemented. It would help small and medium enterprises the most, since they are most burdened by complex procedures. Ideally, an institution like NITI Aayog could document what the Centre has actually done on deregulation and put pressure on the states to follow suit. On the devolution of taxes, the 16th Finance Commission, is the Constitutional body responsible for making recommendations and they will look into it. I feel the states definitely need more devolution of taxes and it is better to have larger automatic transfers rather than rely on the Central government schemes where the Centre funds part of the cost but designs the scheme. Frankly, the more advanced states are now much more capable and they need more resources. There is a linked issue here and that is that the states don't delegate downward to local bodies. Unfortunately, this can't be done through the Finance Commission. It has to be done by the state government delegating downward. Very few states are willing to do this.
