Preliminary work begins at KRS dam despite opposition
near Mysuru.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
This development sparked fresh outrage among stakeholders, particularly given the assurances made by the district administration just days earlier. During a meeting on Friday, in the zilla panchayat, district minister N Cheluvarayaswamy acknowledged the widespread opposition to the Rs 92 crore project. He praised the united stand by farmers and local groups and assured that the matter would be taken up with the deputy chief minister and chief minister before proceeding further.
However, contradicting those assurances, groundwork for the project began over the weekend. Workers from Gadag and Hassan have been engaged on-site, for the past three days. The area earmarked for the project is located near the boathouse. When this reporter from TOI visited KRS on Monday, it came to light that initial activities as tree felling, and land levelling have already started. When questioned, one of the workers confirmed, "We have been working here for the last three days for the Cauvery Aarti project.
" There are nearly 20 to 25 workers involved in the preliminary work. As part of the preliminary work, a few trees have already been cut.
Farmer leader Sunanda Jayaram, who has been at the forefront of the opposition expressed deep disappointment over the sudden developments. Upon learning that the work was ongoing on Monday, she contacted the district minister, who once again promised immediate action to halt the project, she said.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
However, even after her call in the morning, preliminary work, including marking, reportedly continued unabated.
Speaking to TOI, Sunanda Jayaram said, "During Friday's meeting, the minister assured us that the govt would not proceed without consulting the DCM and CM. But on Monday, we saw work had already begun. I called the district minister immediately, and he assured us that he would stop the work. If this continues, we will be forced to protest in front of the dam.
We don't need a project that puts the safety of the dam and the environment at risk.
Mysugar factory revival and Agriculture University by district minister Chaluvarayaswamy we welcomed, but this projects are against the people and environment, and hence we are opposing it. If the work still continues, we will stage an indefinite protest at the KRS dam," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Mann Ki Baat: Capital talk
Cabinet whispers: Winds of change There is an undercurrent of speculation in political circles, especially around the BJP, that a few long-serving ministers might soon see changes in their roles. The buzz—still firmly in the realm of gossip—suggests that the RSS has nudged the party leadership to rethink the positions of about six ministers who have held the same portfolios across two terms. Some are seen as having delivered little headline-worthy work in their current jobs, though that judgment is always subjective. The BJP, however, isn't keen to drop them entirely as most are considered close to the top brass. So, they may be shifted laterally into organisational roles. Allies, on the other hand, are unlikely to face any change unless they ask for it themselves. For now, the matter remains a quietly evolving story. Mann Ki Baat: Capital talk Since its launch in October 2014, Mann Ki Baat has become a monthly ritual in many Indian homes. What began as a simple radio address by the Prime Minister has grown into a multimedia platform—broadcast on All India Radio, Doordarshan, YouTube, NewsOnAIR, and even overseas through social media and OTT platforms like WAVES. It shares inspiring stories, social messages, and reflections—but beyond content, it has also proven financially successful. Official data shows it has generated Rs 34.13 crore in revenue so far. That this has been achieved without commercial advertising, with the reach and impact to boot, is remarkable. In an age defined by speed and brevity, Mann Ki Baat demonstrates that thoughtful, long-form storytelling can still resonate widely—and even pay its way.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
GST 2.0 tussle: Centre eyes extra duty over 40% slab on tobacco products; states push for 'significant' cut
Govt mulling extra GST over and above 40% proposed on tobacco products (AI image) The government is reportedly considering imposing additional excise or special duties beyond the proposed 40% GST on tobacco products to sustain current taxation levels, following Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement of GST 2.0 reforms that eliminate compensation cess. Several states are requesting a "significant share" in the supplementary taxation on tobacco items to offset immediate revenue reductions, according to Economic Times sources familiar with ongoing discussions regarding sin goods taxation, particularly tobacco. "During the discussion some states asked for equal share on the additional duty to be imposed," disclosed one source anonymously. The rate rationalisation ministerial group, led by Bihar's deputy chief minister Samrat Chaudhary, is likely to convene once more before the upcoming GST Council meeting to address this matter, with states anticipating next-generation GST reforms. The GST Council will take the ultimate decision on this issue. Presently, tobacco and related products, including cigarette, cigars, pan masala, cigarillos and hookah, face 28% GST plus compensation cess, central excise duty and national calamity contingent duty, totalling 53% indirect tax. The past five years saw average yearly GST collections of Rs 51,000 crore from tobacco products, with additional education cess and surcharges from manufacturers reaching Rs 27,659.84 crore. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo Finance officials, on Independence Day, proposed restructuring GST into two tiers, eliminating 12% and 28% slabs, while introducing a 40% category for select sin goods including tobacco products. The proposal maintains that overall tobacco product taxation would remain unchanged. Without compensation cess, this requires implementation of alternative additional duties. Also read: PM Modi seeks states' backing on draft GST reform proposal, promises double Diwali bonus for people Revenue considerations Various states seek either equal shares in additional duties or independent taxation rights, similar to alcohol's state excise duty system. They contend that existing indirect tax on tobacco products can exceed 53% without affecting revenue for central or state governments. "A few states suggested that either it should be a basic excise duty, divisible between the Centre and states, or a central excise duty along with state excise duty - which would be a win-win for both, giving headroom to states to generate their revenue," revealed a source involved in discussions. Kerala has formally requested compensation for revenue losses from GST reforms. "The so-called simplification of GST rates announced by Modi will be devastating for state revenues," Kerala finance minister Thomas Issac said in a post on X. "The GST rates that have already been rendered below revenue neutral rate by 2018 pre-election simplification, will now shrink further. States must be compensated for the loss." India's tobacco products remain globally amongst the most affordable, according to parliamentary standing committee's 139th report. The report indicated substantial scope for increased taxation, recommending 40% peak rate and significant excise duty increases. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays , public holidays , current gold rate and silver price .
News18
an hour ago
- News18
IWT Was Signed Without Parliament Nod: Congress, Vajpayee Accused Nehru Of Sell-Out
Last Updated: Jawaharlal Nehru, faced with severe opposition in Parliament during debate on IWT in 1960, said rejecting the treaty would have turned West Punjab (Pakistan) into a wilderness Speaking from the Red Fort on August 15, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the ' Indus Waters Treaty ' (IWT) signed by Jawaharlal Nehru with Pakistan in 1960 as unjust and one-sided. He said the treaty had caused unimaginable loss to India's farmers. But do you know what happened when this issue was debated in Parliament in 1960? Most MPs, even Congressmen, criticised the treaty. But their words fell on deaf ears. CNN-News18 dug into Parliament archives to read records of this debate. On November 30, 1960, the Lok Sabha took up the Indus Waters Treaty for discussion. It was short but very intense. It revealed a deep divide between Jawaharlal Nehru's government, which defended the treaty as pragmatic statesmanship, and a wide spectrum of MPs across parties, including Congressmen, who felt India had sacrificed too much to Pakistan. The treaty had been signed without taking the Parliament or opposition leaders into confidence. By the time Parliament discussed the treaty, it was already ratified. The treaty had already been signed in Karachi by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan's military ruler President Ayub Khan on September 19, 1960, with the World Bank as guarantor. Ten members moved the motion. Just two hours were allotted. It was clear from the very beginning that Parliament had been given no role in shaping the treaty—only in reacting to a fait accompli. First, the context. After more than a decade of wrangling, the Indus Water Treaty was signed in 1960 with the World Bank as a player. The three eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, Sutlej — would go to India. The three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, Chenab — would go to Pakistan. But India would contribute Rs 83 crore (in sterling) towards replacement works in Pakistan. On paper, Nehru hailed it as a model of cooperation. But MPs across the spectrum reacted with dismay. The debate started with Surendra Mohanty, the MP from Dhenkanal (All India Ganatantra Parishad), insisting the Prime Minister himself must be present: 'He was the signatory, he alone can explain why this agreement was made." Braj Raj Singh, an Independent MP from Firozabad, said the treaty had created 'considerable concern in the country". Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, the irrigation minister, tried to reassure the House: 'The Prime Minister will speak." The stage was set. Then began the wave of criticism. Congressmen slammed Nehru Harish Chandra Mathur, a Congressman, spoke like a member of the Opposition. His anger reflected the feeling in Rajasthan, which relied heavily on Indus waters. Mathur called the treaty all to the disadvantage of India, all to the advantage of Pakistan. He said India was yielding too much: 'Over-generosity at the cost of our own people is not statesmanship." Mathur read out headlines of newspapers across India that had condemned the treaty. He warned of perpetual annual losses of Rs 70-80 crore for his home state Rajasthan due to five million acre-feet of lost water. 'Rajasthan has been very badly let down in this treaty," he said. Mathur did not stop here. He argued that India had surrendered step by step since 1948, and while Pakistan kept raising its demands, India yielded under pressure. The Congress MP went on to criticise Nehru for not linking the water settlement to Kashmir: 'If they are assured of water, Kashmir should cease to be a problem. Has Kashmir ceased to be a problem," he asked. His words resonated strongly with the House with more Congressmen standing up to counter Nehru. Asoka Mehta, a respected intellectual in the Congress, delivered one of the sharpest speeches by comparing the treaty to a 'second partition", saying, 'We are reopening all the wounds of 1947…this is being done again with the signature of our Prime Minister". He added that after 12 years of talks, India had settled on terms 'which cannot be justified as fair". Mehta made a sharp observation — that the treaty gave 80% of waters to Pakistan, only 20% to India — worse than the earlier 75:25 proposal. Criticising Nehru's haste, Mehta said, 'No government has the right to make mistakes twice. That is why the country is deeply and profoundly agitated". He said after the distribution of waters under this treaty Pakistan will permit very valuable water to flow into the seas. As Mehta said the debate itself was being rushed and termed just two hours as too little for a matter that has agitated the entire country, another Congressman from Bengal, A.C. Guha, joined cause with him. Guha focused on the economic and financial imbalance — saying India had 26 million acres in the Indus basin, but only 19% irrigated, while Pakistan's 39 million acres were 54% irrigated. 'By land share, India should have received 40% of waters. Instead, it got only 20%. Pakistan received Rs 400+ crore in grants, India just Rs 27 crore in loans," Guha said. He added that 'the more regrettable thing is that waters which India would need badly would be allowed to flow into the sea unutilised and yet we shall be denied the opportunity of developing our own land with that water". The Congressman also criticised paying Rs 83 crore in sterling to Pakistan when India faced a foreign exchange crisis. He termed it 'the height of folly". He castigated Nehru further, saying whenever we negotiate with Pakistan, our interests are sacrificed to placate them. Vajpayee led the charge A young Vajpayee, still in his early 30s, gave a sharp, pointed intervention, highlighting how government had earlier announced stoppage of water to Pakistan by 1962, yet now it was conceding permanent rights. 'Either that announcement was wrong, or this treaty is wrong," Vajpayee said. He quoted Pakistan President Ayub Khan claiming India had conceded joint control of rivers: 'Joint control comprehends joint possession," Vajpayee warned. 'Parliament is not taken into confidence when such agreements were done," he said. He also questioned Nehru's motives: 'Why did Nehru go so far? This is not the way to build harmony." Vajpayee said good relations can only be built on justice, not appeasement and criticised the government for bypassing Parliament on issues of security and economy. Vajpayee concluded that the treaty was 'not in the interest of India", and that it would not bring lasting friendship. He was backed by an Independent MP, Brajraj Singh who accused the government of selling India's pride. Singh also quoted Ayub Khan's provocative statement after the treaty — that Pakistan should control the upper reaches of rivers. He lamented that Parliament was not even informed that ratification of the treaty had been completed. K.T.K. Tangamani, the Communist party MP, also zeroed in on lack of consultation. He said Parliament had been in session until 9 September; the treaty signed on 19 September, so 'surely the House could have been taken into confidence?" He also called the treaty as a one-sided give, not give-and-take. Nehru's reply: A lonely defence Finally, Nehru rose to speak. His tone was weary, almost depressed, but firm as he called it a 'good treaty for India". Nehru rejected the 'second partition" claim of his fellow Congressmen as 'loose, meaningless language" and asked: 'Partition of what? A pailful of water?" Nehru also insisted that such international treaties could not be managed by constant parliamentary approval. 'There were mountains of papers, a dozen approaches, ten years of struggle. We had to take a call," Nehru argued. He also justified that India had to pay Pakistan to replace lost waters. 'We purchased a settlement, we purchased peace," Nehru said, admitting Pakistan had initially demanded Rs 300 crore, but India had settled for Rs 83 crore. Nehru also warned that rejecting the treaty would have turned West Punjab into a wilderness, destabilising the subcontinent. He appealed for a broader vision: 'When we deal with mighty things like relations between nations, let us not adopt a narrow approach." Closing his case, Nehru said India had made substantial and profitable gains, even if critics only saw losses. But he was pressed for time—he left the chamber to meet the visiting Crown Prince of Japan, leaving behind an unsatisfied House. Even after Nehru's defence, MPs were unconvinced. Vajpayee remarked that most members 'still could not understand why India signed such a treaty". The result The debate ended without a vote, the treaty already ratified. But the debate showed rare unity across opposition and ruling benches in criticising Nehru. Nehru appeared isolated, defending the treaty on moral and internationalist grounds, while the House spoke in the language of national interest and suspicion of Pakistan. top videos View all For young leaders like Vajpayee, this was an early stage to craft the narrative that Nehru was too soft, too idealistic, and too ready to sacrifice Indian interests. Most MPs warned that the treaty was a sell-out, a 'second partition", and an appeasement. But Nehru said the treaty was pragmatic, necessary, and good for India in the long run. Finally, after 65 years, Narendra Modi decided to put the treaty into abeyance after the Pahalgam terror attack. About the Author Aman Sharma Aman Sharma, Executive Editor - National Affairs at CNN-News18, and Bureau Chief at News18 in Delhi, has over two decades of experience in covering the wide spectrum of politics and the Prime Minister's More Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Homework Column Indus Waters Treaty Jawaharlal Nehru Narendra Modi news18 specials view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 18, 2025, 08:34 IST News politics IWT Was Signed Without Parliament Nod: Congress, Vajpayee Accused Nehru Of Sell-Out | Exclusive Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
