Fresh Dairy Duel? Amul vs Nandini Turf War Spills Over To Bengaluru Metro
With kiosks and Metro space entering the equation, the fight between the dairy giants is no longer just about milk—it's about territory, control, and political messaging
The long-simmering turf war between dairy giants Amul and Karnataka Milk Federation's (KMF) Nandini has boiled over again—this time over setting up kiosks inside Bengaluru's Namma Metro stations.
The latest flashpoint? BMRCL's decision to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Gujarat-based Amul to set up kiosks at 10 key Metro stations across the city.
Now, with kiosks and Metro space entering the equation, the fight is no longer just about milk—it's about territory, control, and political messaging.
'There was an open tendering process. Amul participated and won the bid for 10 stations. It's open to all. If KMF wants to participate, let them come forward," a senior BMRCL official told News18.
A senior KMF official confirmed to News18 that Nandini is currently in talks with BMRCL to negotiate rentals and will open along the same metro stations as Amul. 'We are in talks with BMRCL on our kiosks," the official said.
Amul has, however, already moved in and set up two kiosks—one at Byappanahalli metro station and the other at Beniganahalli metro station as per the MoU.
'Nandini had earlier set up kiosks at three stations—MG Road, Mahalaxmi and Vijayanagar—but shut two down due to low revenue," a top BMRCL source said. Only the Vijayanagar outlet is still operational.
The BMRCL deal gives Amul kiosk space at 10 busy Metro stations: Pattandur Agrahara, Indiranagar, Benniganahalli, Byappanahalli, Trinity, Sir M Visvesvaraya, Nadaprabhu Kempegowda (Majestic), National College, Jayanagar and Banashankari.
But the political milk has already spilt.
BJP MP PC Mohan launched a sharp attack on the Siddaramaiah government, accusing it of betraying Karnataka's dairy farmers by allowing Amul into Metro spaces and leaving out Nandini. 'The Congress government, which oversees BMRCL, has enabled Amul to displace Nandini. This is a betrayal," he said.
The JD(S) went a step further, alleging that Deputy CM DK Shivakumar had 'sold his self-respect for commissions". On X, the party posted: 'Before polls, Congress launched a 'Save Nandini' campaign. Now, for commission, Shivakumar is welcoming outsiders."
Shivakaumr countered the argument by saying that Nandini will be given space within the metro stations to be set up and Amul has set up only two kiosks till now.
KMF officials, meanwhile, say they're in touch with BMRCL. 'We're renegotiating rental terms. Talks are ongoing," one senior officer said. BMRCL, for its part, maintained that there's still room for negotiation.
'Retail spaces are available. If KMF shows interest, we'll consider," an official said, clarifying that the move is aimed at increasing non-fare box revenue to offset public subsidies when it comes to train fares.
But this isn't just about kiosks, it's a political war.
In 2022, Union Home Minister Amit Shah's comment in Mandya—that Amul and KMF should cooperate—set off alarm bells. Protesters feared a merger. A year later, ahead of the 2023 Karnataka assembly polls, Amul announced its plans to sell milk and curd in Bengaluru through e-commerce platforms. That move quickly became political gunpowder.
Congress, then in opposition, accused the BJP of 'red-carpet treatment" to Amul, claiming it was an attempt to sideline Karnataka's home-grown dairy brand Nandini. Kannadigas took to social media in protest, dubbing it a threat to the pride and livelihood of Karnataka's dairy farmers.
While both Amul and KMF use the same Anand model of milk procurement, and even compete in markets like Mumbai, Hyderabad and Goa, they had so far stayed off each other's home turfs. That changed in 2023.
Karnataka is a milk-surplus state—its 16 district milk unions supply far more than local demand, allowing exports to other states. The KMF is the country's second-largest dairy cooperative after Amul, offering competitive prices and rooted in a strong local farmer network.
Amul had then clarified that its entry was limited to a niche, e-commerce audience. But the damage was done—the Nandini vs Amul narrative had already become an election issue and now a turf war between Karnataka and Gujarat.
tags :
amul bengaluru BJP congress DK Shivakumar Nandini news18 specials
Location :
Bengaluru, India, India
First Published:
June 18, 2025, 15:58 IST
News india Fresh Dairy Duel? Amul vs Nandini Turf War Spills Over To Bengaluru Metro
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC cancels Rs 295 crore land payout order over bizman's fake claim
Noida: The Supreme Court has struck down a Rs 295-crore compensation award to Hyderabad-based businessman Reddy Veeranna, ruling that the payment was secured through fraudulent claims and a deliberate suppression of facts regarding land ownership in Noida. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside both the Allahabad high court's 2021 order and its own 2022 ruling that had granted enhanced compensation to Veeranna for land acquired in Sector 18. "The impugned order of the High Court dated October 28, 2021 passed in WP (Civil) 2272/2019 [Reddy Veeranna v State of Uttar Pradesh & ors] stands set aside, since fraud has vitiated the entire proceedings. As a corollary to the above, the judgment and order dated May 5, 2022 in Reddy Veerana (supra) (which too was obtained by playing fraud) is declared to be a nullity and stands recalled in exercise of our inherent powers," the court said in its order. The case revolves around over five bighas in Chhalera Banger village, jointly purchased in 1997 by Veeranna, Vishnu Vardhan, and T Sudhakar for Rs 1 crore. In 2005, Noida Authority partially acquired this land and later leased it to DLF for Rs 173 crore. The Mall of India now stands there. While the three co-owners initially contested the Authority's acquisition together, Veeranna subsequently began claiming exclusive ownership. He obtained a compromise decree from a trial court in 2006 — using a revoked power of attorney — which became the basis for recording his name as the sole owner in govt records. In 2019, Veeranna approached the high court, seeking enhanced compensation without making his co-owners party to the case. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The high court awarded him compensation at Rs 1.1 lakh per sqm. The Supreme Court not just upheld the HC order, but also removed a 50% development charge that had been deducted, raising Veeranna's total entitlement to around 360 crore. The payout eventually settled at 295 crore following discussions with the Authority. The apex court had, however, clarified then that it was not deciding on ownership. Vardhan, who claimed he was not informed about these proceedings, approached the SC in 2023, filing multiple petitions to challenge Veeranna's claim. He asserted that Veeranna had repeatedly misled the HC and SC, relying on an invalid decree procured through manipulation and concealment. In its judgment, the apex court found that Veeranna had consistently identified himself as a joint owner with Vishnu and Sudhakar in earlier proceedings, but abruptly changed his stance in 2019. The bench held that he had suppressed critical facts, including Vishnu's pending civil suit challenging the 2006 decree. "We have no hesitation to hold that Veeranna Reddy tailored a situation to suit his convenience by not impleading Vishnu as a party with the sole intention of obtaining an order in respect of not only the quantum of compensation payable for acquisition of the subject land but also a declaration as to his entitlement thereto — all, behind Vishnu's back. An attempt by Reddy to steal a march over Vishnu is clearly discernible which, without reference to anything more, does border on fraud," the court observed. The case has now been remanded in the high court for a fresh hearing of ownership and compensation with all parties present, including Vishnu and Sudhakar. While Veeranna has retained the compensation amount, he has furnished property securities worth Rs 295 crore through his firm Manyata-Pristine. It will remain deposited with the SC. Given the "magnitude of fraud", the SC has requested the high court chief justice to personally hear the case and conclude it preferably by the end of this year.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Rubio praises Pak's ‘partnership in countering terrorism' after meeting Ishaq Dar
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, in Washington on Friday. The two leaders held wide-ranging talks on strengthening bilateral ties, trade cooperation, and regional to X, Rubio said he thanked Dar for 'Pakistan's partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional stability.' The leaders also discussed ways to expand bilateral trade and deepen collaboration in the critical minerals and mining with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister @MIshaqDar50 today to discuss expanding bilateral trade and enhancing collaboration in the critical minerals sector. I also thanked him for Pakistan's partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) July 25, 2025advertisementAccording to US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, Secretary Rubio expressed appreciation for 'Pakistan's continued willingness to play a constructive role in mediating conversations with Iran and its commitment to preserving regional stability.' The two sides also discussed plans for the upcoming US-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue set to be held in Islamabad this August. The talks included enhancing cooperation against terror groups such as ISIS-K, as both nations seek to broaden counterterrorism efforts in the Rubio stressed the importance of 'expanding mutually beneficial bilateral trade' and exploring future opportunities for joint work in the minerals sector, an area gaining strategic significance amid growing global demand for critical to Arab News, Ishaq Dar is on an eight-day visit to the US, during which he chaired multiple United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meetings as part of Pakistan's rotating presidency this meeting comes just days after Rubio announced that the United States would designate The Resistance Front (TRF), a front for the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as both a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).TRF had claimed responsibility for the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 people.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
