Chandigarh: Former MP Bansal flays BJP's ‘slum-free' initiative
May 08, 2025 08:56 AM IST
Former Chandigarh MP Pawan Kumar Bansal termed the claim of UT administration to make Chandigarh a slum free city as dubious and accused it of choosing questionable 'anti-people means' to achieve the objective. Bansal said that under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the UPA government had formulated the Small Flats Scheme in 2006 to construct 25,728 small flats in Chandigarh to rehabilitate all the families living in 18 slum colonies in the city. Of those 12,224 flats were constructed by 2014 and Chandigarh was adjudged the best city for planned habitat for urban poor. Dr Joan Cloas, executive director of the UN-HABITAT, on his visit to Chandigarh in 2011 also lauded the scheme to make Chandigarh the first slum free city in the country. Former Chandigarh MP Pawan Kumar Bansal. (File)
Bansal further said that earlier over 21,600 one-room tenements and sites services had been allotted as a rehabilitation measure before clearing slums. Also, about 25,000 LIG, MIG and HIG flats were constructed by the Chandigarh Housing Board, besides allotment of land to a number of Cooperative Group Housing Societies.
However, the succeeding NDA government has reversed the entire process. The Small Flat Scheme was discontinued and replaced by PM Awas Yojna. In the last eleven years only about 5,000 flats have been added at an enhanced monthly rent of ₹ 3,000.
Cong leaders laud defence forces
Chief spokesperson of Chandigarh Congress Rajiv Sharma, praising the defence forces, said people of Chandigarh salute the commendable strategic planning and professionalism of highest order shown by the forces.
President of Chandigarh Congress HS Lucky appealed to the people to stand with the defence forces.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Explained: International efforts to end Israel's war in Gaza
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Wednesday (June 4) failed to pass a resolution calling for 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza', after a veto by the United States, with all other members voting in favour. The death toll in Gaza has reached almost 55,000 as Israel has continued its renewed ground offensive, launched on May 17, in the Palestinian enclave. Also, the distribution of humanitarian aid, by a US- and Israel-backed NGO, in the Strip has been marred with chaos, confusion, and numerous shooting deaths. How have past international efforts to end Israel's war in Gaza fared? How have international views on Gaza changed over time? What explains Israel's actions? Between October 2023 (when the war began) and June 2025, international efforts to end Israel's war in Gaza focused on three principal fronts – a ceasefire, rebuilding Gaza, and the delivery of humanitarian aid. The objectives of diverse stakeholders across these efforts have all effectively failed. Efforts towards a ceasefire have been made both within and outside of the UN framework. At least seven UNSC Resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza have failed, with Russia and China vetoing two, and the US vetoing five. The UNSC's March 2024 resolution calling for a ceasefire also failed due to Israeli rejections, despite Hamas acceptance. Hamas agreed to release hostages in exchange for Israel releasing Palestinian prisoners. Israel called the UN 'shameless', and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a then-scheduled trip to the Biden White House. The Trump White House, which prefers to work outside the UN framework, focused on implementing a three-phased ceasefire by January 2025. This too broke down by March, with Phase I only partially complete and Israel violating the agreement to resume operations in Gaza. Amidst ceasefire efforts, both the US and Arab stakeholders have also proposed long-term visions for rebuilding Gaza. For instance, President Donald Trump proposed a plan to forcefully displace Palestinians from Gaza to build a 'riviera'. The Arab League endorsed an Egyptian initiative to rebuild Gaza for Palestinians. While Israel and the US maintain maximalist positions, calling for a complete elimination of Hamas from Gaza, Arab states sidestep the long-term question, restricting their efforts to mediating a ceasefire. The 'Hamas question' has also become complicated, given its continued potency in Gaza, despite significant losses to Israeli action. Even before the October 2023 attack, the international community struggled to reconcile its acceptance of Hamas' position in Palestine as a legitimate actor with the condemnation of its use of terrorism. The effort to ensure humanitarian aid to Gaza's 2.1 million civilians — 100% of whom are on the brink of starvation according to the UN — has fallen disastrously short. Israel's complete rejection of the UN as a legitimate avenue has disabled aid delivery, especially since March. Israel banned the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) last October, and both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli settlers actively prevented most aid trucks from reaching designated destinations in Gaza, citing security risks vis-à-vis Hamas. Even when Israel did allow limited aid delivery in May, the UN deemed it insufficient for the scale of Gaza's humanitarian crisis. Rather, Israel prefers aid delivery with a heavily militarised approach, through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which the UN Secretary General has deemed incompatible with international law. First, the Trump administration's policy in the broader Middle East has been detrimental to Israel's stated interests. In the last three months, Washington has engaged with and legitimised Syria's Ahmed Al-Sharaa (who Israel opposes) and concluded a ceasefire with the Houthis in exchange for a cessation of attacks on international shipping (attacks on Israel and Israel-linked shipping have continued). The US also circumvented Israel entirely to negotiate directly with Hamas (in Qatar) for the release of an Israeli American hostage in May. The Trump administration has continued negotiations with Iran to potentially reach a nuclear deal — another policy anathema to Israel. Second, the critical position of Arab states (including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco which recognised Israel with the signing of the 2020 Abraham Accords) has hardened further as Israel expands its war. Israel also drew the ire of Arab states after it 'banned' a five-country Arab delegation (including Saudi Arabia and UAE) from visiting the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank in early June. Internationally, the Arab effort has focused on garnering greater recognition for the Palestinian state. Saudi Arabia, along with France, is set to jointly host a UN conference on the two-state solution later this month. Third, European states have grown increasingly critical of Israel, primarily due to Israel's blocking of aid delivery. In May, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom issued a rare and categorical rebuke of Israel's actions and committed to 'recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to achieving a two-state solution'. Both Israel and the US have warned European states against recognising Palestine, even as Spain, Norway, and Ireland formally recognised the State of Palestine on May 28. The evolution of the United Kingdom's position is a case in point. Compared to the UNSC's failed October 2023 resolution calling for a ceasefire, where the UK abstained, it now consistently votes in favour of such resolutions even without condemnations of Hamas. Explaining its June 2025 vote in favour, the UK deemed Israel's new operation 'unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive'. The growing international (non-American) pressure has led Israel to expand and intensify its operations in Gaza (and settlement activity in the West Bank), rather than disabling them. For instance, a week prior to Trump's Middle East tour in May, the Israeli cabinet officially approved a plan to 'capture' Gaza and hold territory through an expanded operation (Op Gideon's Chariot). This operation in turn has cemented the failure of international efforts towards a ceasefire and aid delivery, and has been the key trigger for adverse international reactions towards Israel, and greater recognition of Palestinian sovereignty. Note that while US policy towards the Middle East has pushed against Israel's interests, Washington has compensated by backing Israeli actions in Palestine through continuing diplomatic and military support. 'Trump restrains Netanyahu's regional ambitions but gives him a free hand with the Palestinians,' Aluff Benn, the Editor in Chief of Israel's Haaretz newspaper recently said. Effectively, this has emboldened Netanyahu to push for Israel's indefinite occupation of Gaza. For Netanyahu, occupying Gaza is not a new objective to push back against mounting international pressure, but is rather a historic endeavour. In 2005, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel's illegal settlements from the Strip, Netanyahu had resigned from Sharon's government to oppose the move. That Israel has now been further emboldened was evident in Netanyahu declaring on Thursday (June 5) that Israel was arming a number of criminal gangs in Gaza to fight Hamas. This was the first such confirmation from the Israeli government and a tactic similar to Netanyahu's preference of tacitly 'partnering' with Hamas in past decades to undercut the possibility of a unified Palestinian leadership. As the IDF's recent call for over 400,000 reservists to active duty shows, Israel is gearing up towards a large-scale occupation of Gaza. For the current Israeli Prime Minister, the overt American support and the unwillingness of Arab and European states to sanction Israel or undertake substantial punitive measures are sufficient to press forward with occupation, and further disable the possibility of a Palestinian state. As is a recurring theme in Palestine, global support for Palestinian statehood occurs alongside Israel's physical erosion of its possibility.
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
Why Pakistan's Taliban Sanctions Panel Role At UNSC Is No Victory, Here's The Fine Print
Last Updated: While Pakistan will chair the UNSC Taliban Sanctions Committee, it is no victory for Islamabad - due to its poor record on terrorism - as it received far less than what it wanted. While Pakistan is set to chair the Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council in 2025, it failed to get what it wanted – to secure chairmanship of other UN Sanctions Committees – possibly due to its dismal record of keeping cross-border terrorism emanating from the country in check. Apart from chairing the UNSC Taliban Sanctions Committee, Pakistan will also be the vice-chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the 15-nation UN body. According to a list of chairs of the subsidiary bodies of the UN Security Council, Denmark will chair the 1267 ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council, while Russia and Sierra Leone will be vice-chairs for 2025. However, Pakistan has actually received far less than what it wanted, given the world's doubts on Islamabad's credibility. For the first time in the history of the UN Security Council, the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Sanctions will have two co-chairs. Pakistan will co-chair the documentation IWG with Denmark and the Sanctions IWG with Greece. What Did Pakistan Want? Pakistan had demanded the 1267 Sanctions Committee; 1540 (Non-Proliferation) Sanctions Committee; 1988 (Taliban) Committee and Chair of the 1373 Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC), but only got the Taliban Sanctions Committee, much less than what it had wanted. Pakistan is also co-chairing the 1373 CTC, which is not very substantial and is merely ceremonial in nature. India had chaired the 1373 CTC in 2011 and in the committees require consensus of members, so the current allocation is far below the expectations of Pakistani leadership. In reality, the allocation has dealt a heavy blow to Pakistan, as its allocation remains far below its expectations despite sending a delegation – led by Bilawal Bhutto – to the UN, possibly due to its poor track record on cross-border terrorism. Despite failing to curb terrorism on its soil, Pakistan showed an uncompromising and undeserving attitude that delayed a consensus from being formed by six months, which greatly annoyed other UNSC members. India's Diplomatic Outreach India, which co-chaired the Counter Terrorism Committee in 2022, has consistently reminded the international community that Pakistan is host to the world's largest number of UN-proscribed terrorists and entities, including notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden, who was found and eliminated by American forces in Pakistan in 2011. In a big blow to Pakistan, Russia and Guyana – both sharing cordial ties with India – are vice-chairs in the Taliban Sanctions Committee, which will prevent Pakistan from gaining a free hand. Pakistan is also co-chairing two IWGs with Denmark and Greece, who are also friends with India. This means that India can use its diplomatic might and close partnership with friends in the Council to prevent Pakistan from making any adverse steps. Notably, India had also chaired the same 1988 (Taliban) Sanctions Committee during its UNSC 2021-22 term along with the Chair of the 1970 Libya Sanctions Committee. First Published: June 07, 2025, 15:20 IST
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
After nearly 28 years, Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link Project fully operational
The 272-km Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link Project, which was started in 1997, took almost 28 years to become operational. Its first 55 km long section between Jammu and Udhampur was completed in April 2005. According to Northern Railways, the whole project was completed and operationalised in multiple phases, with the last one being inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday. After opening the Jammu-Udhampur section, the then UPA government focused on sections in Kashmir and operationalised the 68 km long Anantnag-Mazhom rail link in October 2008"Then came a 32 km long Mazhom - Baramulla rail link on which train services started in February 2009. So by 2009, locals availed train journey from the last point of the USBRL project, ie, Baramulla to Anantnag," a Northern Railway official said. He added, 'Since work was going on simultaneously on other sections, Railways was able to extend the train service from Anantnag to Quazigund towards Jammu side by October end in 2009.' The Railways achieved another significant milestone when it further extended the train services from Quazigund to Banihal in June 2013, which involved the construction of an 11.215 km long Pir Panjal tunnel. "Almost a year later, in July 2014, the Udhampur-Katra line from the Jammu side was made operational," the official said. According to a railway source, "When the Modi government came to power, the rail services were operational from Baramulla to Banihal in Kashmir side and Katra to Jammu on the other side. The missing link - Banihal to Katra - needed to become operational for bringing Kashmir on the rail network of the country." "The Modi government completed the Banihal to Katra connectivity in two phases. First, Banihal to Sangaldan in Feb 2024 and then Sangaldan to Katra on June 6, 2025, was made operational, completing the missing link," he added. The Northern Railway said that the Banihal to Katra section has the iconic Chenab and Anji Bridge and some of the toughest and longest tunnels. "For instance, the 12.75 km long country's longest operational rail tunnel is between Banihal and Sangaldan. Many other challenging infrastructure development works were materialised in the past 11 years," another official said.
