Evaluation of Telangana's Dalita Bandhu implementation sought
A civil society organization Forum for Good Governance conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the Dalita Bandhu programme in Vasalamarri village. Under Dalit Bandhu scheme each SC family will get Rs 10 lakh, without a bank linkage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
MGNREGA ‘scam': Now, another FIR registered against 2 Bharuch agencies, political slugfest ensues
Following two FIRs lodged in Dahod district for alleged scams, worth Rs 71 crore, under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) – in which two sons of Gujarat Minister of State for Panchayat and Agriculture, Bachubhai Khabad — Kiran and Balvantsinh — were also arrested, the Bharuch district police on Saturday booked two Gir-Somnath based agencies for allegedly a similar MGNREGA scam of Rs 7.30 crore. The development led to a political slugfest with Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Chaitar Vasava alleging that the Bharuch agencies were linked to Congress leader Hira Jotva even as the latter refuted the allegations. The FIR lodged by the Assistant MGNREGA account officer PU Chaudhary of the Bharuch District Rural Development Authority against Veraval-based Jalaram Enterprises, owned by Piyush Nukani and Murlidhar Enterprises by Jodha Sabhad states that the agencies allegedly defrauded the state government of Rs 7.30 crore. 'The irregularity relates to MGNREGA projects in Amod, Jambusar, and Hansot talukas of the district… As per the process, e-tendering was undertaken to procure materials… As per the provisions, works above Rs 5 lakh can be sanctioned by the Executive Engineer while for works under Rs 5 lakh… can be taken from the Deputy Executive Engineer. As per the complaint received from an infrastructure company, the two agencies contracted to supply material had passed bills in violation of tender conditions…,' states the FIR. The FIR states that following a detailed investigation into the complaint, it was found that in works of building roads in villages of Jambusar, Amod and Hansot talukas, inflated bills of material supply were presented while only a small amount of material was used. 'The bills put forth from Jambusar were for 128.40 cubic metres of material, while the actual material used was 28.32 cubic metre (Cum) as against the stipulated use of 103 Cum…' the FIR states. Similar discrepancies were also found in 56 villages, with an amount to the tune of Rs 7.30 crore. The FIR states that the scam was carried out 'in connivance' with the government officials, contractual MGNREGA officials to 'snatch away the daily bread of the unemployed persons who stood to benefit from the MGNREGA projects' as well as 'for financial benefit, at the cost of the state government exchequer.' On Saturday Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA from Dediapada in Narmada district, Chaitar Vasava blamed Gir-Somnath Congress leader Hira Jotva for the scam, alleging that the two agencies named in the FIR were linked to Jotva. Vasava said, 'The FIR has been lodged only for a scam of Rs 7.3 crore… But if one checks the accounts, only in a span of about an year, payments of Rs 60 crore have been cleared to the agencies. They have submitted forged bills without even supplying the materials. The bills are unverified and also non-GST bills… The MGNREGA scams are (being carried out) under the pressure of ministers and in connivance with the local officers, crores of rupees have been paid to these companies…' Vasava accused, 'a veteran Congress leader' for being the mastermind in the MGNREGA scam and said that Jotva — who contested the 2024 Lok Sabha polls from Junagadh as a Congress candidate — is directly linked to the two firms booked in Bharuch. Vasava said, 'We had said a couple of days ago that the mastermind of the MGNREGA scam (in Bharuch) is a top Congress leader. Hira Jotva, who also contested the Junagadh Lok Sabha polls, is involved directly in these two agencies as two men working with him have been made proprietors in these agencies. An amount worth Rs 400 crore has been deposited in the accounts in various districts, including Narmada, Dahod, Panchmahal, Chhota Udepur and even Bharuch… The accounts must be carefully probed into to unearth the scam. We are not going to let it slip by. If strict action is not initiated in this case, we will start a public agitation.' Refuting Vasava's allegations, Jotva told this newspaper that AAP was the 'B-Team' of the BJP and was indulging in mud-slinging to benefit in the upcoming Visavadar Assembly constituency bypolls, where Gopal Italia is an AAP candidate. Hira Jotva told The Indian Express, 'Neither do the two agencies booked in Bharuch for the MGNREGA scam belong to me nor to any persons related to me… What Chaitar Vasava is trying to do is to distract people from the actual probe going on against the misdealings of people associated with the BJP. This is because AAP is working as the B team of the BJP to win the Visavadar polls with the BJP's support. I say that anyone involved in the MGNREGA scam anywhere should be punished.' Meanwhile, Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC) spokesperson Dr Manish Doshi said that AAP had approached Jotva — a local influential leader of the Ahir community — to back Italia in the upcoming polls and resorted to alleged attacks when the Congress leader refused to give in. Doshi said, 'The entire narrative is being woven around the Visavadar Assembly Constituency. AAP is the B-team of the BJP and is working to ensure that people are distracted from the MGNREGA scam in Dahod, in which the Panchayat minister's sons are involved… We all know that the corruption and irregularities are carried out by BJP leaders and the moment they come to light, the BJP starts a campaign through someone to divert attention.'
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ladda dacoity case: One accused's name cropped up in 2023 list of illicit business operators in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The investigation into the dacoity at industrialist Santosh Ladda's bungalow has uncovered that Yogesh Hajbe, one of the detained suspects, was previously identified in a register of unlawful business operators. This list was presented by Maharashtra legislative council's Leader of Opposition (LoP) Ambadas Danve during the assembly session in 2023. Danve's presentation included detailed information about operators from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar city, their business types, and alleged police payoffs. Hajbe (31) has previous records of bootlegging activities. He subsequently expanded his illegal operations to include managing lodges and got involved in flesh trade. Danve's allegations suggested that the city police were collecting Rs 60 lakh monthly from various illegal enterprises. He specifically mentioned crime branch inspector Sandeep Gurme during the session and called for a thorough investigation, causing significant disturbance within police ranks. Inspector supervising Ladda probe was named by Danve in 2023 The matter has since received little attention from senior police officers or politicians. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Где два мира сливаются воедино SAUDI Забронировать Undo The current dacoity investigation is being supervised by inspector Gurme. Recent transfer orders from the Director General of Police's office have reassigned inspector Gurme to the Police Training School (PTS), Jalna. However, he is yet to be relieved from his current position due to the ongoing Ladda case investigation. Police commissioner Pravin Pawar, who assumed office in June 2024, claimed unfamiliarity with the LoP's previous assembly session allegations. "Currently, the primary focus is on the ongoing investigation in the dacoity case. We will definitely look into whether any police personnel were in touch with the accused named in the dacoity case, and if we find any connection, we will definitely initiate action," he said.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
political line newsletter speech I hate, but must defend
Unless we defend the rights of both Vijay Shah and Ali Khan Mahmudabad to say whatever they want to, neither can be defended rationally ------ There are two Special Investigation Teams (SIT), each comprising three IPS officers investigating two people, on the directions of the Supreme Court of India: Madhya Pradesh's BJP Minister Vijay Shah and Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. The SC order has specified that the SIT in Madhya Pradesh must be of directly recruited IPS officers from outside of the State cadre. The implied equivalence of these two cases in the SC approach — that the police can investigate alleged criminality premised on the idea of excessive speech —has been disconcerting for many people. Those who were outraged by Mr. Shah's comments, which the SC rightly described as 'crass, thoughtless,' wanted legal action against him. Broadly, the same set of people were also outraged by Haryana police arresting Mr. Mahmudabad. The interesting spectacle of six IPS officers trying to parse through the sentences of two people to investigate criminality in them leads us to the question: what exactly is freedom of expression. Can there be selective freedom of expression? Should hate speech be allowed in a civilized society? If some speech must be restricted, who gets to decide what is allowed and what is restricted? As we have seen in recent days, the Congress government in Karnataka and the BJP government in Haryana have different standards of what speech can be allowed. We need to defend the rights of both Mr. Shah and Mr. Mahmudabad. Free speech cannot be restricted to what one person likes; hate speech cannot be defined as what another hates. Unless free speech is absolute, including — and especially — for views that are dissenting and offensive, there is no meaning in it. A police inspector or a random political actor can initiate a case, and the rest will depend on the social capital and relative power of the side that claims to be aggrieved and that of the alleged aggressor. A free speech supporter cannot call for punishment of Mr. Shah and protection for Mr. Mahmudabad. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall have the right to 'freedom of speech and expression,' and then goes to add multiple caveats. 'Reasonable restrictions' on free speech include 'the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.' This is echoed in criminal laws and Mr. Mahmudabad was actually arrested on charges of endangering the country's sovereignty and integrity and promoting enmity between different groups, among others, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Article 19 also gives citizens the right to 'assemble peaceably and without arms,' again with caveats similar to those mentioned above. As it happens, the government of Assam has decided to arm indigenous communities. In this case, the state is abdicating its role of providing security and encouraging select groups to arm themselves. This is not new. In Kashmir to fight back separatists, and in Chhattisgarh to neutralise the Maoists, local communities were armed. The broader question is the power of the state to decide what are legitimate arms and what is legitimate speech. In the US, people have much more power than in India to bear arms and to speak freely. There are restrictions there too, but they are more narrowly defined. Arbitrary measures are not unheard of, but some dependable precedents are in place, evolved through judicial disputes over the decades. But the Republicans and Democrats both want to restrict speech in the US — they differ on what kind. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are recurring grounds for restricting speech in many contexts in the West, including by the state. In India, commenting on Hinduism or nationalism can be adventure intellectualism these days. The default liberal position, however, should be that all speech is allowed. If there are any restrictions, they must withstand objective reasoning. Federalism Tract: Notes on Indian diversity Tongue lashing Kamal Haasan is set to enter the Rajya Sabha. But he made news for other reasons. His statement that Kannada is born out of Tamil triggered a reaction in Karnataka. In fact, for all the talk around Dravidian languages and culture, the linguistic pride of each State and conflicts between regions within States have been politically consequential. The Telugus wanted separation from the then Madras State, and their struggle led to the linguistic reorganisation of States. Telugus in Telangana later wanted a separate State for themselves, and they got that. The idea that any language is born from another language is a fallacy that few linguists would take seriously now. Languages interact and migrate along with the people who do the same. The idea that Sanskrit is the mother of all, or many Indian languages, is a common and misplaced notion. Having a heavy load of Sanskrit vocabulary in a language (for instance, Malayalam, my mother tongue) does not make it the child of Sanskrit. It is a more complex process, as linguist and author Peggy Mohan says. I hope, Mr. Haasan watches this too.
