Telangana CM Revanth Reddy holds all-party meeting to oppose Godavari-Banakacherla Project
CM Revanth Reddy targeted former CM K Chandrashekar Rao and opposed the Godavari-Banakacherla Project.
Addressing a press conference on Wednesday, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy exposed the former BRS Government's dole of Godavari waters to Andhra Pradesh.
He made public the recorded evidence that established the facts about the arrangement entered into by both governments after protracted deliberations between then Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao and then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy.
According to a press release by Telangana CMO, CM Revanth Reddy launched a scathing attack on the erstwhile KCR Government for pledging the river water interests of Telangana to Andhra Pradesh voluntarily.
The Chief Minister will be leading an all-party delegation to New Delhi to meet the Union Minister for Water Resources to voice the serious objection of Telangana over the proposed Banakacherla project by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which would cause an irrevocable loss to the interests of Telangana.
Addressing media persons soon after an all-party meeting, convened by him here on Wednesday, the Chief Minister narrated the sequence of the events that led to the agreements that were completely detrimental to the interest of Telangana.
He exposed how KCR had vowed to convert 'Rayalaseema into Ratanala Seema (land of gems)' by letting Godavari water into the basins of the Krishna and Penna, at the expense of Telangana's interests, the press release said.
When N Chandrababu Naidu was the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in 2016, KCR, in his capacity as the Chief Minister of Telangana, compromised the interests of our people and state pulled by proposing at the Apex Council meeting that there was an excess water available to an extent of 3,000 tmc feet in the Godavari of which 1,000 tmc ft was going to waste into the Bay of Bengal.
Launching an attack on the KCR Government, Revanth Reddy said that the BRS leaders were unhesitatingly propagating blatant lies for political gains.
'I want to explain how they had spoken while in government and how they twisted it after losing power,' he said, adding that they were lying through their teeth to revive their plummeting party fortunes either by hook or by crook, attempting to stoke false narratives.
As per the official statement by Telangana CMO, when the Congress was in power between 2004 and 2009, 'we built irrigation projects to relieve farmers of their hardships. Though KCR and former Irrigation Minister Harish Rao had cooperated with the government back then, with complete understanding and even offered suggestions. We agreed to accommodate their inputs. However, they are now resorting to mudslinging on us with malicious intention and dubious objective of deriving political mileage.'
Quoting from the eight-page minutes of the Apex Council meeting held under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 21, 2016 at Shram Shakti Bhawan in the national capital, Revanth Reddy said, 'KCR proposed to divert 3,000 TMC feet of Godavari waters belonging to Telangana, saying they were going wastefully into the sea to Rayalaseema.'
The very foundation for the idea of supplying water to Rayalaseema was laid in that meeting. This project, however, got delayed either due to political reasons or lack of compatibility and camaraderie between Chandrababu Naidu and KCR until 2019.
According to the press release, he added that things took a turn after YS Jagan Mohan Reddy became the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh for the first time and KCR got a renewed term in Telangana.
KCR had held four rounds of meetings with Jagan and decided to transfer water to Rayalaseema. Details of the deliberations between the two governments were explained to the media by the then ministers Eatala Rajender and Buggana Rajendranath Reddy at a press conference. KCR had declared at that time: 'We will transform Rayalaseema into Ratnala Seema (Land of Gems.'
Revanth Reddy said that Andhra Pradesh was now moving ahead with the project based on discussions that happened between KCR and Chandrababu Naidu in 2016 on the Godavari-Banakacherla issue.
KCR stated back then, 'There are no basins or solutions.' AP wasn't pursuing a 200 TMC project--it's for 300 TMC. 'KCR had agreed that Andhra Pradesh could take even up to 400 TMC.'
The Chief Minister said: 'We don't want to join the issue and engage in arguments. So, we appealed to the Union Water Resources Ministry, asserting Telangana would never compromise on its interests and let go of its natural resources. Our government has never shied away from its primary responsibility of protecting the interests of Telangana, come what may.
'BRS never worked for Telangana. The interests of the State were never a priority for them. They did not complete a single project in districts like Palamuru. In 10 years, they failed to finish even one pending project,' Reddy said.
The Godavari-Banakacherla Link Scheme is a massive project proposed by the Andhra Pradesh Government at an estimated cost of Rs 80,112 crore. The plan involves diverting 200 TMC of water from the Godavari River at Polavaram to Rayalaseema through the Bollapalli reservoir and Banakacherla head regulator. The proposal seeks to interlink the Godavari, Krishna, and Penna rivers. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
World Will Listen To Us If We Become Strong In All Sectors: Nitin Gadkari
Nagpur: Union minister Nitin Gadkari on Thursday pitched for making India a superpower and " vishwaguru", saying the world would certainly listen to India if it becomes strong in every sector. The Road Transport and Highways Minister was addressing a gathering at a programme to mark 'Akhand Bharat Sankalp Din' organised by the Rashtra Nirman Samiti (social organisation) in Nagpur. "We recall this day because on this day in 1947, the country was divided into two - India and Pakistan. We all, as a mission, accept that our country's partition was unnatural, and one day, our country will become ' akhand ' (unified). This is the resolve we take today in this programme," he said. Mr Gadkari praised India's unity in diversity and also lauded the country's armed forces. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has resolved to make India a 5 trillion-dollar economy, the third-largest economy in the world, as well as " atmanirbhar" and " vishwaguru", he noted, adding all these resolutions will be achieved with the efforts of every Indian. "If we become strong in every sector, then certainly the world will listen to us. Those who are strong in economics, defence, science and technology and those who are progressing in agriculture and business, and a country whose citizens are patriots and cultured, that country can only become vishwaguru," he said. Mr Gadkari praised the Rashtra Nirman Samiti for invoking the thought of "Akhand Bharat" among the people. "When we are taking the resolution for 'Akhand Bharat' today, we should also resolve to make a superpower country which is progressive, prosperous and powerful," he said. Mr Gadkari also raised concerns over road accidents, and underlined the importance of creating awareness among the youth about following the road safety rules. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
‘Ground Reality Can't Be Ignored': Supreme Court Points To Pahalgam Horror In J&K Statehood Plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union government to clarify its position on a series of applications seeking a time-bound restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and emphasised that ground realities must be taken into account. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing petitions that argued the prolonged delay in restoring statehood is 'seriously impacting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and undermining the principle of federalism.' The Bench underscored the significance of the Pahalgam issue during the proceedings. The applicants contended that the absence of a clearly defined timeline for restoring statehood constitutes a breach of federalism, which they emphasised is an integral part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. 'It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,' submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored. On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the 'peculiar position' in Jammu and Kashmir and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the 'correct stage' to consider the matter. 'The MAs (miscellaneous applications) are not maintainable. We had assured two things: the election would be held, and thereafter, the statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,' said SG Mehta. 'I don't know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,' Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench listed the matter after eight weeks. In 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on Centre's behalf that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible". It had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court seeks Centre's stand on pleas seeking restoration of J&K statehood
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Union government's stand on a batch of applications demanding the time-bound restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. A Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran was hearing pleas contending that the continued delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism". The applications argued that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,' submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored. On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the 'peculiar position' in Jammu and Kashmir and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the 'correct stage' to consider the matter. 'The MAs (miscellaneous applications) are not maintainable. We had assured two things: the election would be held, and thereafter, the statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,' said SG Mehta. 'I don't know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,' Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench listed the matter after eight weeks. In 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on Centre's behalf that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible". It had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.
