Assam Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi draws PM Modi's attention to irregularities in dairy project
GUWAHATI
Assam MP Gaurav Gogoi has drawn the attention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to allegations of political favouritism and irregularities in two government-backed dairy projects, including one that entailed the eviction of migrant Muslims.
In a letter to the Prime Minister on Saturday (June 28, 2025), Mr. Gogoi, also the State Congress president, called for an immediate review of the Assistance to Entrepreneur for Establishment of Commercial Dairy Farming (2022–23) scheme, meant to help genuine entrepreneurs, but allegedly being misused.
'The scheme, which provides subsidies up to ₹50 lakh per unit, was designed to support dairy entrepreneurs and strengthen regional milk production. However, several beneficiaries reportedly include relatives and associates of ruling party ministers and MLAs,' Mr. Gogoi stated.
Some eligible and long-standing dairy farmers were overlooked, despite multiple applications, suggesting a lack of fairness and transparency in the beneficiary selection process, Mr. Gogoi said.
The Congress leader criticised Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for publicly defending the inclusion of family members of Ministers, MLAs, and MPs as beneficiaries under the scheme. 'This not only erodes public trust but reflects a troubling endorsement of political bias,' Mr. Gogoi said.
He also cited alleged irregularities in the ₹5.5 crore Gorukhuti agricultural project in the Darrang district, for which some 800 families of Bengali-speaking Muslims were evicted in September 2021. Two eople, including a minor, were killed in police firing during the eviction drive.
Gir cows procured under the Gorukhuti project were allotted to firms linked to an MP and at least four Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs, including a Minister, Mr. Gogoi said.
Terming the alleged resource diversion 'a serious betrayal of public interest', the Congress legislator urged the the PM to initiate an official enquiry into the matter to uphold transparency, accountability, and equitable access to public welfare programmes.
'If politically-connected individuals continue to siphon off schemes meant for the underprivileged, we risk alienating the very communities these policies are designed to empower,' Mr. Gogoi stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
After video with ‘second wife', Uttarakhand's ex-BJP MLA suspended by party for ‘indecent conduct'
Former BJP MLA from Jwalapur, Suresh Rathore, has been expelled from the party for six years for alleged 'indecent conduct'. According to the state media in charge of the BJP, Manveer Singh Chauhan, the party had taken cognizance of a viral video on social media showing Rathore with his second wife, without having divorced his first wife. Calling it 'indecent conduct', he said the party had issued him a show-cause notice, seeking an explanation for his conduct. The video of the former MLA went viral on social media, wherein he is with the Saharanpur-based actress Urmila Sanawar, introducing her as his second wife. This had led to objections from the Congress after they called it a violation of the Uniform Civil Code. The code prohibits polygamy. Chauhan said that the response submitted by Rathore was not satisfactory to the organisation. 'He was found guilty of repeatedly violating the party's code of conduct and social decorum. Acting on the directions of state president Mahendra Bhatt, he has been expelled from the party for six years,' Chauhan said. After his video had stirred controversy, Rathore backtracked from his statement and said that it was part of a film. The Congress spokesperson, Garima Dasauni, said that this was an example of the BJP's immoral politics and double standards. 'If it was truly an act, then should we now believe that every public behaviour of BJP leaders is scripted like a film? And if it was real, then was the party's show-cause notice nothing but a farce?' Dasauni had said earlier this week. She added that the BJP initially remained silent, and only when public outrage grew over the former ruling party MLA's violation of the Uniform Civil Code did the party issue a notice. 'This once again exposes the BJP's opportunistic politics and its pretense of seriousness towards women's dignity,' she added. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Tavleen Singh writes: In praise of Democracy
In the week gone by, this newspaper has paid special attention to the Emergency. Long articles have been written by politicians and journalists who remembered what happened during those 19 months 50 years ago, when democracy was replaced by dictatorship. As someone who got my first job in an Indian newspaper barely a month before Indira Gandhi imposed press censorship, I value those 'dark days of the Emergency' because it was that time that taught me to revere democracy. It disturbed me last week that so many Congress leaders tried to defend the indefensible, in their puzzling compulsion to please their ruling family. What this revealed for everyone to see was the pathetic sycophancy of senior Congress party leaders. They should be ashamed. The Emergency cannot and must not be defended because it caused lasting damage to our democracy. The pillars that are supposed to hold up democracy were all weakened, and it was then that the practice of turning political parties into family businesses began. This very bad idea has flourished since then and the more it has flourished, the weaker it has made our political parties and Parliament. As a country we should have achieved a lot more than we have in our 75 years of existence as a modern nation. We have failed to provide our citizens with such basic things as clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. Our cities look like filthy, sprawling slums and our villages look worse. We have failed to build halfway decent schools and hospitals for those who cannot afford to pay for private services. But what shines amid these many failures is that we have managed against all odds to keep democracy alive in a neighbourhood of military dictatorships and theocracies. Speaking of theocracies, it saddens me that the United States and Israel ended their war in Iran without a regime change. Since he became Supreme Leader in 1989, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has presided over a ruthless theocracy that has spread jihadist terrorism across the world and terrorised Iran's own people. The Ayatollah's regime has tortured thousands of women for the crime of not wearing a hijab 'properly' and his prisons are filled with thousands of people who have raised their voices against his brutal policies. Some have languished in jail cells for decades. Others have been hanged. In between our borders and Iran is a country that is like Iran but led by military men instead of priests, and unlike Iran already has nuclear weapons. The Generals who are Pakistan's real rulers crush dissidence with violence and have used their army to spread jihadist terrorism, with India being the main target of their evil efforts. When you look at India on this wider canvas, you see how good we look and the reason for this is our democracy. This is why it is worrying that there are so many politicians, both on the Left and the Right, who believe that democracy is what has held India back. In the 40 years that this column has existed, I have had the dubious pleasure of interviewing many political leaders. Conversations with Leftist Congress leaders have gone something like this — 'You see we cannot develop our infrastructure and our services in the way China can because we are a democracy, and this has often been a stumbling block.' On the Right, there are voices in the BJP that express similar misgivings about democracy and many secretly admire Indira Gandhi, whatever they might say publicly about the Emergency. As for ordinary Indians, it shames me to admit that I have talked to far too many people who believe that what we need is a 'benevolent dictator'. This is nonsense but I am willing to bet that you have met as many Indians who believe this as I have. By an odd coincidence, on the day that I was writing this column, I happened to see on social media a clip of the famous 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech by John F Kennedy on June 26, 1963, in West Berlin. This was nearly two years after the Berlin Wall was built by the Soviet Union to make sure that the people of East Berlin did not flee to the West. It is one of the finest speeches about democracy that any politician ever made. Kennedy says, 'Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving.' It is a speech that should be compulsory reading for Indian politicians. As for me, if there is one thing that I truly believe, it is that if India had not been a democracy, however flawed our institutions have become because of the Emergency, we may not have survived as a nation. If we have not fragmented in the way the Islamist Republic next door has long hoped we would, it is because democracy has been the glue that has held us together. Far from being the obstacle to progress that some of our politicians believe it has been, it is because of our democracy that India exists. We may not be the 'Mother of democracy' as our Prime Minister likes to tell the world, but in modern times, we have been a democratic republic, and this is something we should all be proud of. Democracy is something that we must cherish.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Ramachandra Guha: Indira Gandhi vs Narendra Modi – whose regime has been worse?
In early June, the senior Congress leader, Jairam Ramesh, began using the hashtag, Emergency@11, in his daily posts charging the Narendra Modi government with various errors, mistakes and crimes. This was in anticipation of what Ramesh knew would come later in the month: namely, the prime minister's invocation of the 50th anniversary of the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi and her Congress Party. Through that hashtag, Ramesh was suggesting that while Indira's Emergency lasted less than two years, Modi's period of authoritarian rule had extended for more than a decade. I myself came of age during Indira Gandhi's prime ministership, and am growing old during Narendra Modi's prime ministership. In this column, I shall venture to compare their political legacies, drawing both on personal experience and on academic research. (I shall leave the assessment of their economic and foreign policy legacies to scholars who understand those subjects better than I do.) To the historian, there are five striking similarities between these two prime ministers separated in time and by ideological affiliation. To begin with, Modi, like Indira, has used his political authority to construct a mammoth personality cult, representing himself as the sole embodiment of the party, the government, the state, the nation itself. This cult is sustained by the public exchequer and burnished by the sycophants around him. Second, like Indira, Modi has worked assiduously to undermine institutions whose independence is vital to democratic functioning. It was Indira who first spoke of a 'committed bureaucracy' and a 'committed judiciary', an idea that Modi has adopted as his own. Although unlike Indira, Modi has not declared a formal Emergency, he has shown a similar disregard for the processes of constitutional democracy. Indira intimidated the press into suppressing the truth; Modi coerces it into telling lies. The bureaucracy is even less independent than it was in the 1970s; the investigative agencies used even more often to silence political opponents. Indira's Declared Emergency unpardonable —but over in 18 months No riots or hate/killing minorities. Historic victory in 1971. Modi's Undeclared Emergency's now 12 years, reign of terror over minorities & dissenters, crushes human rights, mesmerises duffers into hate/kill/troll — Jawhar Sircar (@jawharsircar) June 25, 2025 Third, Modi, like Indira, has adopted a unilateral rather than consultative mode of decision-making, violating the spirit of the Constitution, where the prime minister is presumed to be the first among equals and is not supposed to act in the way an all-powerful American president can. All through Indira's reign, there was only one person whose advice she took seriously; first this was PN Haksar, then Sanjay Gandhi. Likewise with Modi; it is Amit Shah, and Amit Shah alone, whom he trusts. And Shah is as much a votary of non-transparent, authoritarian methods of rule as his boss. Fourth, like Indira, Modi has sought to eviscerate Indian federalism. While Indira used the blunt instrument of Article 356 to dismiss state governments run by non-Congress parties, Modi has weaponised the technically non-partisan office of the governor to weaken elected governments. The Bharatiya Janata Party under Modi and Shah has also used its infamous 'washing machine' to break Opposition parties and install BJP state governments in violation of the popular mandate. Fifth, like Indira, Modi has stoked hyper-nationalism to consolidate his rule. Like her, he has used the party, the state, and the media to claim that only he can represent what India wants and what Indians desire. The jingoism thus nurtured dismisses all criticism as motivated, as being allegedly fuelled by foreign powers. Indira went so far as to insinuate that the great patriot, Jayaprakash Narayan, was a Western agent. Now, the BJP's ecosystem accuses the leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, of being in the pay of George Soros. #sengol #emergency #modi #indira — Nala Ponnappa (@PonnappaCartoon) June 28, 2024 Such are the similarities. I now turn to the differences, of which two are of particular significance. First, despite her dictatorial ways, Indira upheld the plural idea of India encoded in the Constitution, wherein citizenship is not defined in terms of language, religion, or ethnicity. While Jawaharlal Nehru, arguably an even more principled secularist, could not secure the appointment of a single Muslim chief minister in a Congress-ruled state, Indira was able to appoint as many as four. Indira also famously refused to dismiss her Sikh bodyguards, paying for this act of principle with her life. On the other hand, Narendra Modi is a thoroughgoing majoritarian, as dogmatically devoted as any of his fellow swayamsevaks to the construction of a Hindu rashtra in which the nation's politics, cultural ethos and style of administration shall be determined by right-wing Hindus alone, and where Muslims and even Christians will be accorded second-class status. Eleven years of Modi's prime ministership have exposed his 'Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas' for the hypocritical humbug one knew it all along to be. Of the 800-plus MPs sent by the BJP to the Lok Sabha in the elections of 2014, 2019, and 2024, not one was a Muslim. And outside Parliament, physical attacks on Indian Muslims, the bulldozing of Indian Muslim homes, the taunting and stigmatisation of Indian Muslims, even the forcible expulsion of Indian Muslims to other countries, all proceed apace, cheered on by Modi's supporters and by the section of the media memorably characterised as 'Lashkar-e-Noida'. #Emergency #Door #Indira — Nala Ponnappa (@PonnappaCartoon) June 25, 2025 Indira's belief that our country belonged equally to all Indians regardless of their religion admirably marked her out from the majoritarian Modi. On the other hand, the second major difference between them brings her discredit. For, by anointing her son, Sanjay, as her successor during the Emergency and, then, after Sanjay's death in 1980, making her other son, Rajiv, her heir, she introduced a pernicious political practice that ran contrary to the history and heritage of the Congress Party in which none of Mahatma Gandhi's children became an MP or minister after Independence, although all four had gone to prison during the freedom struggle. Indira's conversion of the country's oldest political party into a family firm encouraged leaders of other parties to do likewise. The Shiv Sena, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Akalis, and the Trinamool Congress once stood for regional pride; now, that often takes second place to the perpetuation of the rule of the Thackerays, the Karunanidhis, the Badals, and the Banerjees, respectively. Likewise, the SP and the RJD stand for the continuation of family rule rather than for socialist ideology. Modi's parents were not in politics, and he has no children. This, in electoral terms, constitutes a colossal (and continuing) advantage he holds over his putative prime ministerial rival, whose elevated status in the Congress Party is owed entirely to the fact that he is the son of Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi and the grandson of Indira Gandhi. The contrast between Modi the self-made politician and Rahul the entitled dynast contributed in good measure to the BJP's victory in the last three general elections, and it may yet help them in the next. More generally, the national dominance of the BJP is enabled by the dynastic politics of the major parties opposed to them. This is a brutal fact that too many brave and well-meaning opponents of Hindu majoritarianism are unable or unwilling to acknowledge. Dynastic politics is one legacy of the Emergency that continues to exercise a baleful influence on Indian democracy in the present. Of all the prime ministers we have had since Independence, Indira Gandhi and Narendra Modi have been the two with instinctively authoritarian instincts. Whose regime has been worse? When reckoned in terms of freedom of expression, we are slightly better placed now, given the existence of a few independent websites and regional newspapers which tell the truth as it should be told. Likewise, there is a greater space for political opposition, principally because while in the Emergency all but one state government was controlled by the Congress, now more than half-a-dozen states are in the hands of parties strongly opposed to the BJP. On the other hand, since May 2014, our public institutions have been deeply and perhaps irreversibly damaged by excessive political interference. The bureaucracy and the diplomatic corps are largely compromised; the higher judiciary, only slightly less so. The tax authorities and the regulatory agencies are more 'committed' to their political bosses than ever before; so, arguably, is the Election Commission. Finally, and most worryingly, under Modi's watch the poison of religious bigotry has spread far, deep, and wide. This bigotry is increasingly manifest in everyday life on the ground, and in the speech and conduct of senior cabinet ministers (including the home minister and, on occasion, the prime minister), and of chief ministers of the BJP (notably those of Uttar Pradesh and Assam). The armed forces, once so proudly secular and non-sectarian, are increasingly asked to demonstrate a public allegiance to Hinduism and Hindu domination. This fusion of majoritarianism with authoritarianism constitutes the most damaging aspect of Narendra Modi's style of governance, which, even after he has finally demitted office, may take decades to undo and reverse.
