Govt reduced land allotted to Metro for real estate lobby: Min
The area falls under the Bengaluru North Lok Sabha constituency, which MoS Karandlaje represents.
Speaking to reporters after inspecting the site, where a proposed multimodal transport hub was to be developed, MoS Karandlaje said, 'We are in the Hebbal area of Bengaluru. In 2000, under the leadership of then CM late S.M. Krishna, 51 acres of land in the Hebbal-Amanikere area were acquired. After encroachments, 48 acres remain today. Just a month ago, the current government decided to hand over this land to BMRCL for the development of a multimodal transport hub.'
'However, very recently, the allotment was reduced to just 9 acres. Why was this done? Why did the government backtrack from its original decision to allocate 48 acres and now grant only 9? Who is behind this decision? Which real estate mafia is influencing this move? Let us not forget - this land is situated en route to the Bengaluru International Airport,' she said.
Emphasising the strategic importance of the location, she said, 'This is going to be a major junction. A Metro station, BMTC depot, Ring Road connection, and NHAI roads are all planned here. The area is ideal for a multimodal transport hub that can significantly ease traffic congestion on the airport road.'
'But now, the government and the minister in charge have colluded to override the previous decision. How much money exchanged hands? How much was given to Randeep Singh Surjewala? These questions need answers,' she said.
She added that local farmers, who had given up their land for development, are now demanding it back if it is going to be handed over to private parties. 'People from various states have settled here. There are Bengalis, Rohingyas. Anti-national activities are reportedly taking place. Garbage and bottles from across Bengaluru are dumped here. No one knows who these people are. Many claim to be from Kolkata and possess Aadhaar cards, some of which are fake, along with fake voter ID cards. They claim to have lived here for 10 to 15 years,' MoS Karandlaje said.
Hashtags
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
C Raja Mohan writes: The West vs the Rest, a fiction
Speaking at the 1957 Moscow Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties, Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong declared that the 'East wind will prevail over the West'. The occasion was the 40th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. For Mao, the 'East wind' meant the 'socialist camp' (led by the Soviet Union and China), and the 'West wind' represented the capitalist countries (led by the US). He declared that the balance of world forces had shifted decisively in favour of the socialist camp in the middle of the 20th century. The idea that the West is in decline and that it will soon be swamped by the rising tide of 'the rest' has been a recurrent theme since the encounter between the West and the rest began several centuries ago. Here is the problem. The West refuses to disappear, and the rest is having a difficult time taking charge. Mao himself embarked on a fight with the Soviet Union barely two years after making the grand declaration on the rise of the East wind. He broke the socialist camp, divided the communist movement all over the world, and paved the way for an alliance between Communist China and the 'evil empire', the US. The marriage between Western capital and the Chinese market produced a breathtaking global economic expansion for nearly five decades. It also made Beijing the second most important power — economic, technological and military – in the world. A risen China now talks again of leading the East, now rebranded as the 'Global South' or the 'Global Majority' to victory against a declining West. Declinism is also in fashion in Western academia and think tanks. Many fear the barbarians from the East are ready to show up at the gates. The fear in the West is matched by the irrational exuberance in the rest about the impending collapse of the US-led world order. Sceptics might say, not so fast. They point to US President Donald Trump's entirely unanticipated initial successes in singlehandedly rewriting the rules of global trade. The rest did not join hands to counter Trump. Most of them have queued up to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with him. The claim that Trump is winning is vigorously contested. Is Trump accelerating the decline of the American empire and the West, or is he heralding its resurgence? While the debate on this question will continue, Amitav Acharya, one of the leading scholars of international relations, puts the debate in a deep historical perspective. Acharya's new book, The Once and Future World Order, seeks to dismantle the conceptions of global order built around the rise of the West. He reminds us that there was a world before the West and another after it. Acharya argues that the pursuit of order — rules, norms, and institutions that enable peace and promote commerce — did not begin with the modern West. He suggests it is rooted in ancient, diverse civilisations across the world. Far from a future dominated by a new hegemon or descending into chaos, he foresees a decentralised, inclusive system drawing on both Western and non-Western traditions. Acharya asserts that ancient Sumer, China, India, Greece, Mesoamerica, and the Islamic world all devised ways to manage interstate relations. While the post-World War II Liberal International Order led by the US shaped the modern age, Acharya sees it as just one chapter in a longer global history. The Western-led order, forged through empire, conquest, exploitation and ruthless Cold War geopolitics, was never as universal or complete as its proponents claimed. Global norms evolved through continuous cross-civilisational borrowing. The West never monopolised the ideals of peace, law, or cooperation. In confronting anxieties about Western decline, Acharya offers a different narrative. Rather than a harbinger of disorder, the erosion of Western primacy creates space for a more equitable global structure. He introduces the concept of a 'multiplex' order — where no single state dominates, and multiple actors, from states to international institutions and non-state players, share responsibility for shaping norms. Rejecting both the 'clash of civilisations' thesis and the idea of an inevitable Chinese hegemony, Acharya advocates a cooperative system grounded in civilisational pluralism. He envisions a world not of imposed norms but of negotiated consensus — a 'confluence of civilisations'. This future demands learning from each other, not dominance. The Once and Future World Order is a timely corrective to the dominant narratives in the West and the East. Acharya's central message is that the rise of non-Western actors is not a crisis but a chance to build a fairer, more representative system. Acharya's hopeful vision of a multiplex order is persuasive but incomplete. It downplays serious constraints in the East that hinder its capacity to shape a just and effective global order. These include authoritarianism, the rise of a state that is free to curb individual freedoms in the name of claimed collective interests, violent politics based on exclusive religious, caste, and linguistic identities, and the empowerment of violent vigilante groups that destroy social peace. There is no question that China has been the most successful non-Western world state in bringing economic prosperity and in rooting out the feudal vestiges. But it is yet to redeem the Chinese national movement's promise to deliver democracy to its people. Externally, China is unable to overcome the temptations of national chauvinism and the urge to dominate its neighbourhood. That, in turn, shatters ideas of Asian unity and the Chinese ability to lead a compact of the rest against the West. If the Western oppression is real, the Eastern ones are worse. Meanwhile, students, scientists, technologists, entrepreneurs, the rich and political dissidents from the East continue to migrate to the West, if they can. The soft power of the West remains a powerful magnet to those who see themselves as suffocating under the Eastern regimes. Acharya's critique of Western dominance is compelling, but not all aspects of the Western legacy can or should be discarded. The Enlightenment ideals of the 17th and 18th centuries — reason, scepticism, science, individual liberty, and secularisation of society away from religious dominance — are at the very foundation of Western primacy in the last three centuries. If the East wishes to lead in shaping the world order, it must engage these ideals critically and constructively. Any notion that the East can rise by short-circuiting these values is an illusion. It only delays and derails the effort to rise. The battles against political, religious, and other absolutisms remain to be fought and won in the East. Until then, a rising East will not present an alternative model — only a different and less attractive one. The profound internal contradictions within and across the East will continue to keep it well behind the West. The writer is distinguished fellow at the Council for Defence and Strategic Research and contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Uttan-Virar sea link gets green nod
MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) has given its approval to the Uttan-Virar sea link project, to be built by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). Aerial pic of Uttan, pic by Yogesh Naik The BJP-led Mahayuti government is fast-tracking the project to enhance connectivity to the Vadhavan port mega-project in Palghar. The proposed sea link, which will feature three connectors, at Uttan in Thane district, and Vasai and Virar in Palghar district, was submitted to the MCZMA on April 9 and was cleared on July 11. State environment secretary Jayashree Bhoj said the proposal would now be placed before the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change for approval. The Uttan-Virar sea link's connectors will claim 15.39 hectares of forest land covered in mangroves, in addition to 2.5 hectares of reserved forest land, in the eco-sensitive zone of the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. MMRDA will also acquire 208.6 hectares of private land for the project. Documents with MMRDA reveal that 9,075 trees will be impacted by sea link's connectors. Of these, 1,868 trees will be axed, 1,612 will be transplanted and 5,595 will be retained. They also show that 8.71 hectares of mangroves will be impacted by the Uttan connector and 6.68 hectares by the Virar connector. Transmission lines and a water pipeline will also have to be diverted. The Versova-Virar sea link project was originally planned from Versova to Virar. However, since the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) is implementing the North Coastal Road and Dahisar-Bhayandar Link Road (DBLR), which connects Versova to Bhayandar along the coast via an alternative route, the proposed sea link will connect Uttan to Virar. The project includes a 24.25-km-long sea bridge from Uttan to Virar. It will run parallel to the coast, at a distance of 1 km. It includes three connectors to improve regional access – the 9.32-km long Uttan (Mira-Bhayandar) connector, starting at an interchange near Uttan beach and connecting to Mira-Bhayandar via the main road near Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose ground. The Vasai connector will be 2.5 km long, connecting the sea link to an interchange at Way Side Amenities. The Virar connector is an 18.95-km extension to Virar, starting near Arnala beach. An interchange will connect to the Delhi-Mumbai Expressway.
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
Narendra Modi ‘failed' to answer questions on Pahalgam, Trump in Lok Sabha: Opposition - ‘typical Nehru bashing'
Opposition parties accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of not answering their questions, including those related to Pahalgam's "intelligence failure" and US President Donald Trump's "ceasefire" claims, while speaking in theLok Sabha during the debate on Operation Sindoor on Tuesday. In his address replying to the debate, PM Narendra Modi affirmed that no leader of any country had asked India to stop Operation Sindoor, which was still giving "sleepless nights" to the masterminds of the Pahalgam attack. Modi, in doing so, rebutted President Trump's repeated claims of mediating a 'ceasefire' after four days of military action during Operation Sindoor in May this year in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack. Narendra Modi said he had, in fact, told US Vice President JD Vance on the night of May 9 that Pakistan will pay dearly for any attack on India. Soon after Modi's 100-minute-long speech in Lok Sabha, President Trump repeated his claim, calling India his 'friend' "Yeah, I think so. India is my friend. They ended the war with Pakistan at my deal with India is not finalised. India has been a good friend, but India has charged basically more tariffs than almost any other country," Trump said when asked by reporters aboard Air Force One if India is going to pay high tariffs, between 20-25 per cent. Opposition leaders, however, said that the prime minister did not categorically deny Trump's claim of brokering peace between India and Pakistan. Congress leader Pawan Khera said they haven't received a single answer. "We were asking for a discussion because both we and the country wanted answers. We haven't got a single answer," Khera told PTI Videos. "Simple question is how did Pahalgam happen, how did the terrorists manage to get into India, and attack our civilians, our tourists. No answers," he said. "Why did the announcement of ceasefire come from America? That's a question we haven't got an answer for," Khera said. Samajwadi Party chief and Lok Sabha MP Akhilesh Yadav, in an apparent reference to China, said the Indian government could not see the real threat, even though he did not name the country. In his earlier speech in Lok Sabha, Yadav had compared China's 'threat to India'to any threat of terrorism. "They are not able to see the real threat, who is standing behind Pakistan. If they can't see the real threat despite being in the government, what can be done..." the former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh said. Trinamool Congress MP Sagarika Ghose said the speech was "theatrical", but failed to answer questions. "Typically theatrical speech by the prime minister. He failed to answer the questions of the Opposition. First question about the intelligence and security failure that led to the terror attack in Pahalgam," Ghose said. "Second, why is it that India's diplomatic outreach failed to achieve the desired results? Third, why has President Trump repeatedly taken the credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire, and linked it to commerce, to trade deal," she said. Ghose said the prime minister failed to answer these questions. "All we had was typical theatre and drama, and typical Nehru bashing," she said. She also said that PM Narenda Modi should publicly say that President Trump is "not telling the truth". "The prime minister has failed to counter President Trump," she said. Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi said PM Modi tried to take the whole credit for Operation Sindoor. "Prime Minister Modi, in his two-hour speech, tried to take full credit for Operation Sindoor. At the beginning of the speech, he said that the people of the country supported him. He is wrong, people of the country fully supported the government and the Indian Army," he said, adding that the prime minister did not mention China even once in his speech. Congress MP KC Venugopal said there was nothing new in what the prime minister said. "What Amit Shah said today morning is repeated by the prime minister. There was nothing else," he said.
