We are not against an individual: Congress MP Mallu Ravi on VP elections
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How Opposition's V-P pick once pulled up UPA govt over graft claims
In 2011, when the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government was dealing with a raft of allegations related to corruption, it was pulled up by the Supreme Court for 'sleeping' on the issue of black money, and ordered to set up a special investigation team. Vice-Presidential Candidate & former Supreme Court Judge B Sudershan Reddy being Welcomed by MPs of Opposition Parties at Delhi airport in New Delhi on Tuesday. (HT PHOTO) One of the judges who passed that order, B Sudershan Reddy, 79, was on Tuesday named by the INDIA bloc of Opposition parties, in which the Congress is the largest constituent (by MPs), as its vice presidential candidate. That was one of the last orders of Reddy in the Supreme Court, where he was a judge between 2007 and 2011. An expert on the Constitution –– he has written a book on the Preamble –– and an admirer of both BR Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru, Reddy was born in an agricultural family on July 8, 1946 at Akula Mylaram village of Kandukur block in Ranga Reddy district of Telangana (then part of the princely state of Hyderabad). Reddy graduated in law from Osmania University in Hyderabad in 1971. He enrolled as an advocate and worked under senior advocate K Pratap Reddy. Having argued various cases in city civil courts in Hyderabad and later in the then combined high court of Andhra Pradesh, Reddy later became the government pleader on August 8, 1988 in the high court, arguing cases pertaining to the revenue department. He continued in the post till January 8, 1990. Reddy was elected as president of Andhra Pradesh high court advocates' association in 1993-94. He was elevated as the additional judge of the high court on May 2, 1995. And he was appointed as chief justice for Gauhati high court on December 5, 2005. On January 12, 2007, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India; he retired on July 8, 2011. Among his notable verdicts was one declaring Salwa Judum, a local militia propped up by the state government in Chhattisgarh to fight Maoists, as anti-constitutional. Along with justice SS Nijjar, he said arming civilians was 'unethical and dangerous' and was violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life). After his retirement, he was appointed as the first Lokayukta of Goa in March 2013. He resigned from the post on personal grounds in October 2013. A staunch supporter of formation of separate Telangana, Reddy was an active participant in various movements in support of bifurcation. He also raised his voice in support of bifurcation of the combined Andhra Pradesh high court. Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner, who has known Reddy for over three decades by virtue of his legal profession, having worked as a professor at NALSAR University of Law, said that as a judge, Reddy was deeply committed to the rule of law and he has dedicated his life to upholding constitutional values in the Indian democratic framework. 'Some judges have etched their names in history through their unwavering integrity, distinctive vision, and faith in democratic principles — justice B Sudarshan Reddy is one among them.'
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
A urea crisis in Telangana
Urea, a soil nutrient essential for plant growth, has become a political flashpoint between the Central government and the Telangana government. Given short supply, farmers are standing in queues outside fertilizer shops for hours, hoping to secure urea for their crops. While the ruling Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are blaming each other for the situation, the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) is blaming both. In February, the Ministry of Agriculture had allotted five types of fertilizers (urea, di-ammonium phosphate, muriate of potash, complex fertilizers, and single super phosphate) to Telangana. This included 9.8 lakh tonnes of urea for the Kharif season. While there has been little difference between demand and supply of other fertilizers, the gap regarding urea has become an issue. In an official communication, the Central government informed Telangana that it would receive 8.3 lakh tonnes of urea in the April-August period. However, the State received only 5.32 lakh tonnes till August 17. The Minister for Agriculture, Tummala Nageswara Rao, has blamed the Centre for the crisis, stating that it has failed to ensure supply. 'I have written separately to the Union Ministers for Agriculture and Chemicals and Fertilizers to supply the allotted quantity of urea. Officials of the Agriculture Department have also addressed letters to the Union Secretaries of Agriculture and Chemicals and Fertilizers, but in vain,' he said. Mr. Nageswara Rao accused the Centre of misleading Parliament by stating that an ample quantity of urea had been allotted to the State, claiming that it did not provide the supply numbers. Meanwhile the State unit president of the BJP, N. Ramchander Rao, alleged that the State government mismanaged supply. He claimed that the Centre had supplied Telangana more than the required amount. He accused the State administration of diversion, inefficiency, and black marketing. Mr. Ramchander Rao also demanded to know why the problem had cropped up only in Telangana. Mr. Nageswara Rao countered him saying Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Haryana, and Punjab were also facing urea scarcity due to the short supply of both indigenous and imported urea. The Congress also raised the issue in Parliament. While the Congress and the BJP are engaged in a war of words, the BRS has been meeting farmers at fertilizer shops and reminding them that they did not face such hassles during its regime. With the crisis escalating, Mr. Nageswara Rao wrote to the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers, requesting him to supply at least 3 lakh tonnes of urea in August in addition to the 0.68 lakh tonnes supplied so far this month. Telangana, like many other States, has not received the required supplies of either the indigenous variety of urea or of the imported variety. Issues in domestic production are due to hurdles in imports of key raw materials and the rise in consumption of the soil nutrient. Issues in imports are due to export restrictions imposed by China. India also imports urea from Oman, Russia, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt and Nigeria, besides China. Imports vary from 15% to 30% of the total based on the local production in a year. India had aimed to end imports of urea by 2025 by enhancing local production. In 2022, the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers said that new plants would be established. However, the goal remains a mirage. The estimated consumption of urea in 2025-26 is about 410 lakh tonnes, with an increase expected due to a rise in Kharif cultivation. Telangana's woes are compounded with problems in the operation of the Ramagundam Fertilizers and Chemicals, where there was no production for 78 days from April due to technical glitches. Of the urea produced in India, Telangana gets most of its supply from the plant, which has a production capacity of 12.7 lakh tonnes per annum. Production of nano urea (liquid) is also yet to be scaled up in the country. Farmers have also not embraced nano urea yet, as it involves additional costs. With reports of China easing restrictions on exports to India, officials are hopeful that there will be no scarcity in the Rabi season. During the Kharif season, however, there is little hope of getting additional supply from overseas or increasing domestic capacity immediately.
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Breaking down the Chinese wall
As India and China commemorate 75 years of diplomatic engagement this year, strong signs of a diplomatic thaw have emerged. The meeting between Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Defence Ministers' meeting in January; resumption of the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra in June; and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's two-day visit to India this week all offer glimpses of warmth. A meeting point for two worlds Long before modern diplomacy took shape, and borders were established and redrawn, the relationship between India and China was nurtured by something more enduring: the shared pursuit of knowledge. As early as the first millennium CE, Chinese monks such as Faxian, Xuanzang, and Yijing journeyed across treacherous landscapes to reach Indian centres of learning. At the heart of this exchange stood Nalanda, where ideas flowed more freely than goods, and religious belief and secular inquiry coexisted in harmony. Nalanda was a meeting point of the two worlds, where cultural and intellectual connections flourished far beyond the concerns of modern statehood. In the quest to revive Nalanda today, there is more than nostalgia; there is hope to rebuild the kind of meaningful, respectful engagement that once defined our ties. Nalanda, both as an institution and as a philosophy, has long embodied a commitment to peace, dialogue, and intellectual diplomacy. It's enduring spirit lives on in its motto — 'Aa no bhadra kratavo yantu viśvata (let noble thoughts come to us from all directions).' This same spirit lives on in the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world as one family). This way of thinking has, for centuries, held together the threads of exchange between India and China. Since the time of Xuanzang, scholars, teachers, and students from both nations have engaged in meaningful interaction, unimpeded by the boundaries that define the modern state. Today, the space for such academic and cultural exchange seems to be narrowed. Should contemporary political complexities necessarily limit the flow of ideas between two ancient civilisations? Stalling of trade, recurring military confrontations, and hundreds of academic or people-to-people connections awaiting bureaucratic clearance have created a kind of stillness, one that feels far removed from the natural flow of exchange that once defined our ties. Why must scholars on either side require permission to engage in dialogue, or students hesitate before considering an academic exchange with institutions of global standing across the border? There is immense potential for mutual learning. India can look to China's initiatives in areas such as food security, local infrastructure development, or grassroots entrepreneurship. And China's academic and policy community may find value in studying India's democratic decentralisation, open civil society engagement, or digital public goods framework. These are not points of comparison, but possible pathways of collaborative learning. In this light, one wonders: why does India's engagement with China remain so carefully limited? Why does strategic ambiguity continue to define a relationship rooted in shared intellectual history? How can we move from reactive diplomacy towards a more confident, future-facing framework that honours the depth of our civilisational ties, while meeting the complexities of the present? How do we deal with the emergence of 'the gatekeeper states,' limiting the range of possibilities? The Nalanda way Just as Nalanda once created space for dialogue and learning between civilisations, perhaps today too, we can draw from that spirit to shape how we engage with China. There will always be areas where our paths differ: on the border, in trade, or in the way we see the region around us. But Nalanda reminds us that disagreement does not have to mean disengagement. It is possible to hold firm where we must, and still stay open to conversations where they matter. This approach also calls for some reflection on how we prepare ourselves. We don't need to change our principles, but we may need to adapt how we practice them. Investing in stronger academic and policy research on China, allowing smoother academic exchanges in areas such as environment, health, and culture, and building long-term people-to-people connections are quiet but important steps. Nalanda drew its strength from more than just being a beacon of knowledge. At the heart of Nalanda's tradition were values that still feel close to us: curiosity, compassion, and the transformative power of knowledge. Scholars such as Śīlabhadra, who taught the Chinese monk Xuanzang, showed that learning could also be a form of diplomacy. Nalanda wasn't just India's; it was also a place of deep importance to generations of Chinese scholars who carried its teachings home and helped shape the intellectual and spiritual fabric of East Asia. Today, perhaps these principles matter even more. If India and China can draw from this shared legacy with genuine intention, they may find a way to engage with each other more thoughtfully. Curiosity without fear, dialogue without suspicion, and clarity without aggression could be the beginning of a steadier path built on understanding and mutual respect. We need to break down our Chinese wall to move beyond the paranoia that sustains our China policy. Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, Associate Professor heading the School of International Relations and Peace Studies, and founding coordinator of the Centre for Bay of Bengal Studies; Anushka Padmanabh Antrolikar, Postgraduate scholar at Nalanda University, Rajgir
