Drop fresh caste census exercise, support Centre's survey: Forum
Bengaluru: The Samajika Nyaya Jagruthi Vedike on Sunday urged the state government not to 'hurriedly' conduct another Social and Educational survey (caste census) since the Union government had already decided to enumerate castes during the upcoming decadal census..The forum conducted a round-table conference to gather opinions about the caste census..Addressing reporters after the meeting, Prof Vishnukant Chattapalli said: 'We welcome the Centre's decision to enumerate castes along with the upcoming census. It will be more comprehensive and constitutionally sound too. Already, Rs 165 crore of the taxpayers' money has been wasted on the caste census (in Karnataka). Thus, the state government should not go for another hurried caste census but instead support the Centre's move and strengthen federalism.'.Fresh caste census in Karnataka: Panel preps for fresh survey even as Congress faces Ahinda anger.Stating that 10 years had been 'wasted' in Karnataka over the caste census issue, he said: 'Hereon, the government must be careful while utilising taxpayers' money. They must not make the caste census a victim of their selfishness and politics. The Kantharaj Commission report should be released to the public.'.Chattapalli noted that the Union government's exercise, expected to cost Rs 13,000 crore, would use 32 parameters..Reacting to the Congress' allegations that the Centre hadn't specified whether the census would include a social and educational survey, former Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) member Mukudappa said the Congress didn't have the 'ethical standing' to oppose the report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump is open to regime change in Iran, after his admin said that wasn't goal
The Trump administration on Sunday sent a series of conflicting messages to Iran - with US officials initially indicating a willingness to resume negotiations after a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites and President Donald Trump talking up the possibility of regime change. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Trump posted on social media. "MIGA!!!" The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth said. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the US president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran. Live Events Up until the US president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Hegseth had said that America "does not seek war" with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme that might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. All of that raises the question of whether the strikes will open up a far more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. Inside the US, the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics with Trump choosing to spend part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress. Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambaste Rep Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. "We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the bomb right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)" Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force Gen Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. Caine indicated that the goal of the operation - destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan - had been achieved. "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Caine said. Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss "sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground," he felt "very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon." Pressed further, he told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon." The vice president said the US had "negotiated aggressively' with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting "in good faith." "I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbours, not to be a threat to the United States, and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears," Vance said. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "there are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless, unless they mess around and they attack" US interests. Trump has previously threatened other countries, but often backed down or failed to follow through, given his promises to his coalition of voters not to entangle the United States in an extended war. It was not immediately clear whether Iran saw the avoidance of a wider conflict as in its best interests. Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the US inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Israeli airstrikes that began on June 13 local time targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals, prompting retaliation from Iran and creating a series of events that contributed to the US attack. While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Washington was "fully responsible" for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. "They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities," he said at a news conference in Turkey. "I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy." China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were "a gross violation of international law," said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated "returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course." A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to "a global level". British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for "a rapid resumption of negotiations." France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi crown prince and sultan of Oman. Iran could try to stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which could create the same kind of inflationary shocks that the world felt after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Oil prices increased in the financial markets as the war between Israel and Iran had intensified, climbing by 21% over the past month. The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline for the strikes was the result of a schedule set by Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. "Iran found out" that when Trump "says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation," Hegseth said. "Otherwise, that nuclear programme, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it." That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the US benefited from Iran's weakened air defences and was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran. "Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission," Caine said. Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. Caine added that the US used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran's sites at Fordo and Natanz. The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 pm and 7:05 pm in Washington, or roughly 2:10 am on Sunday in Iran.
The Print
33 minutes ago
- The Print
Centre, Karnataka to jointly compensate mango farmers in state for losses due to fall in prices
According to an official statement on Saturday, the decision was taken during a video conference between Chouhan and Karnataka Agriculture Minister N Chaluvaraya Swamy. The compensation will be provided for a quantity up to 2.5 lakh tonnes of mangoes, which is 25 per cent of the total production in Karnataka. New Delhi, Jun 21 (PTI) The Central and Karnataka government have decided to jointly compensate mango farmers of the state, for a total quantity up to 2.5 lakh tonnes, in view of decline in prices of this fruit in the open market. Chouhan has provided significant relief to mango farmers in Karnataka who have been troubled by steadily falling prices, it added. 'To address the drop in mango prices, the central and state governments will jointly bear the cost of the price difference and pay that to the farmers,' the Union agriculture ministry said. Union Agriculture Secretary Devesh Chaturvedi also participated in the virtual meeting. During the discussions, both ministers agreed to compensate farmers for the price difference on 2.5 lakh tonnes of mangoes. Previously, the Karnataka government had submitted a proposal to the Government of India, stating that prices for tomatoes and mangoes, particularly the Totapuri variety, had been falling steadily. As part of the meeting held on Saturday, the discussions were held on providing compensation for up to 2.5 lakh metric tonnes out of Karnataka's estimated total mango production of 10 lakh metric tonnes. Since farmers were receiving much lower-than-usual prices for Totapuri mangoes, it was decided in the virtual meeting that the difference in price from the usual market rate would be borne equally by the Centre and state governments under a central government scheme. During the discussions, Karnataka's agriculture minister noted that while tomato prices were low at the time the proposal was submitted, prices have now stabilised, so no immediate action is needed for tomatoes. Swamy thanked the Union minister for taking this decision to support and provide relief to mango-producing farmers in the state. PTI MJH TRB This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hindustan Times
35 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
The US attacks allow Netanyahu to end war with Iran and in Gaza, says predecessor
THE AMERICAN attacks on Iran's three nuclear sites mark a dramatic escalation in the conflict that began on June 13th with the Israeli assault on Iran. President Donald Trump, in his characteristically unpredictable fashion, resolved to undertake an action he had eschewed for years, both during his first term in office and in recent months, despite making repeated threats against Iran. It must be noted that, to the American president's credit, he has actualised what several of his predecessors had promised. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all cautioned that a nuclear Iran posed a danger to world peace, and that America would use all means at its disposal to prevent it from producing a nuclear bomb. Throughout those years, and especially since his return as Israeli prime minister in 2009, Binyamin Netanyahu transformed the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons into the central preoccupation of Israel's national-security policy. He issued warnings, made threats and prepared for a military strike against Iran. America supported the policy and its objective but refused to permit an Israeli or a joint Israeli-American military operation to proceed. In the face of Mr Netanyahu's threats and preparations for military action, Mr Obama went to great lengths to avert an attack, even conducting secret negotiations with Iran, which culminated in a widely supported international agreement. This accord was intended to restrict Iran's nuclear activities to civilian applications. Although many saw weaknesses in the deal, numerous security experts in Israel considered its control mechanisms sufficient to significantly curtail Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb. Mr Netanyahu, however, criticised the deal and orchestrated an international public campaign against it. He secured an invitation to address a joint session of America's Congress to challenge Mr Obama and urge the lawmakers to reject the agreement. This was a bold manoeuvre that cast a dark shadow over Israeli-American relations at the time. Mr Obama remained steadfast in his position, and Israel responded by conducting an extensive campaign to thwart Iran's uranium-enrichment activities as much as possible. Much of this was covert, though at times it was clear that attacks had been carried out against nuclear facilities or high-level scientists. No one claimed responsibility, yet it was widely understood that Israel's Mossad was probably involved. On one occasion Israel did officially take responsibility for an unprecedented operation in Iran: the infiltration by Mossad agents of a warehouse in Tehran containing thousands of documents and computer files about Iran's nuclear activities. The indications from this, surprisingly, were that Iran had scrupulously adhered to all commitments undertaken within the framework of the deal with Mr Obama and, in practice, had kept to its undertaking not to move towards being able to build a bomb. Despite all this, after taking office in 2017 Mr Trump decided to withdraw from the agreement his predecessor had signed, in effect paving the way for the Iranian leadership to announce a resumption of accelerated enrichment to a level that brings it perilously close to being able to build a nuclear bomb in a short period. Joe Biden talked about reinstating the deal in some form during his presidency, but it wasn't to be. And then Mr Trump was re-elected. He reiterated the commitment of all his predecessors to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear capability. America's bombing of the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear complexes over the weekend is game-changing. It will transform the immediate conflict between Israel and Iran, postponing, for the time being, the peril posed by Iran's nuclear programme. But its repercussions will reverberate far beyond that. America's entry into the war builds on Israeli attacks involving hundreds of aircraft, supported by precise and detailed intelligence and unparalleled cyber capabilities. The decision to launch these attacks was courageous and exceptional—and the credit must go entirely to Mr Netanyahu. For years, we in Israel grew accustomed to Mr Netanyahu's haughty and bombastic rhetoric, in both Hebrew and English, as he threatened to annihilate Israel's enemies, with Iran chief among them. In reality, we always assessed that a vast chasm existed between his oratory and his capacity for making decisions that entail considerable risk, both to Israel's security interests and to his precarious position in politics and standing in opinion polls. This time, Mr Netanyahu surprised his opponents in Israel, myself among them, as well as his critics abroad. Although numerous signs had pointed to a military campaign against Iran, it seemed that the Iranians, too, had learned to distinguish between the prime minister's incendiary rhetoric and his ability to translate it into a comprehensive military operation. This time, they erred—and suffered a major defeat. Iran has been weakened not only in its confrontation with Israel but also as a regional power. Its ability to undermine the political stability of the Middle East is much diminished. However, one must not lose a sense of proportion. Iran is not a terrorist organisation. It is not Hizbullah, Hamas or the Houthis. These are all proxy groups that Iran has cultivated to assist in its ongoing confrontations with Israel—but they are not Iran. The notion that a series of pre-emptive military strikes can bring a nation of over 90m people to its knees—a nation with a cultural heritage spanning millennia, with industrial systems, an academic infrastructure and natural resources that make it one of the world's largest suppliers of oil and gas—is arrogant and unrealistic. Iran will not collapse or shatter, even after the exceptionally painful blow of the American attack. And remember, it still possesses a formidable arsenal of long- and short-range missiles. Mr Netanyahu, along with his defence minister, Israel Katz, and their messianic partners in government, wishes to expand the war—in Gaza and the West Bank as well as against Iran. They may derive satisfaction today from the American action. Yet it is also worth remembering that for more than a week Israel's society and economy have been almost entirely paralysed. Schools are closed, centers of production and commerce are shuttered, the international airport is barely operating and hundreds of thousands of Israelis scattered across the world are unable to return to their country. The question is, what now? What does Mr Trump truly desire? Does Israel possess a coherent plan to bring the war with Iran to a conclusion? And what will Iran do? I cannot offer any counsel to Iran, except perhaps to suggest it suppresses its embarrassment and fundamentally rethinks whether its fundamentalist strategy truly serves its interests, its economy, its stability and its security. Has the time not come to reconsider its priorities and to open a new chapter of dialogue with America and Europe? Is it advisable for Iran to now attack American bases with ballistic missiles, dragging the world's mightiest armed forces into a much broader, more destructive war against it? I presume that Mr Trump, buoyed by admiration for his momentous decision, will wait patiently to see if and how Iran copes with the humiliating blow it has suffered before approving further military action. The president has time. A great deal of time. And what of Israel? It is abundantly clear that the American action obviates the need for continued combat against Iran. In the past nine days, Israel has achieved outcomes that exceed anything it could have anticipated. Mr Netanyahu, meanwhile, has succeeded in diverting attention away from the bogged-down war in Gaza, the fact that 50 Israeli hostages are still held by Hamas, and that Israeli soldiers are being killed, alongside large numbers of uninvolved Palestinians. Continuing the campaign in Gaza will not lead Israel to an achievement worthy of its price—the price of its fallen soldiers, the loss of its hostages, the deaths of Gazans and the erosion of international support for Israel. In ordering the bombers in, Mr Trump has given Israel a splendid opportunity to conclude the war in Iran, liberated for a long period from the nuclear threat it posed—something Israel has yearned for for many years. This is also a convenient exit point for the war in Gaza. Past experience indicates that Mr Netanyahu knows how to start a war but lacks the capacity, the imagination and the strength of character—being entirely dependent on his political partners—to know how to end one. In the coming weeks he will be walking a tightrope. If he is wise, courageous and responsible, he will halt the fighting and earn accolades. If he proves arrogant and bombastic, he will demolish all the achievements, the security and the hope that he could have brought to the State of Israel. Ehud Olmert was the prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009.
