Maharashtra must monetise assets to boost capex, says chief eco advisor
Mumbai: Retired bureaucrat
Praveen Pardeshi
has been appointed chief economic advisor to chief minister Devendra Fadnavis at a challenging juncture - the state faces its highest ever debt of Rs 9.3 lakh crore amid a host of populist welfare schemes.
Speaking to TOI, Pardeshi said there is enough fiscal space for borrowing and that his recommendation is to increase long term institutional borrowings for
capital expenditure
and to monetise the government's assets. This includes leasing irrigation land for tourism and a portion of reservoir surface for solar power generation, besides charging municipal bodies a premium for the use of irrigation water for commercial use.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
"Our fiscal deficit ranges from 2.8 to 3% of GDP which is below the fiscal limit and gives us huge space for more borrowing. In fact, Maharashtra is an underutilised borrowing state compared to others. Borrowing for consumption is bad but borrowing for capital investment is good," said Pardeshi."As discussed with the chief minister, our focus needs to be on long-term loans from institutions and development banks like the WB," said Pardeshi, who is also chief executive officer of the think-tank, Maharashtra Institute for Transformation (MITRA).
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Intel Laptops + 1:1 Support for Your Team
Lenovo Pro Benefits
Learn More
Undo
The average repayment period on such loans is 15-20 years with a five-year moratorium. "This time span allows for the completion of the project and the impact on the economy and incomes. The state is then in a good position to repay the loan and does not face a debt trap. We are targeting loans worth Rs 30,000 crores from development banks," he said. Pardeshi is also advising the government on the monetisation of its assets especially in the irrigation sector. "The water resources dept is one of the largest spenders in the state but is not even able to recover its maintenance cost for dams. The idea is to monetise irrigation projects without burdening the tax-payer," he said.
Idle resources like the reservoir surface have a huge potential for solar power, he said. "Solar power has 15% more efficiency in water because of lower temperatures. We have suggested the department take a PPP advisor, undertake competitive bidding and allocate a certain amount of the reservoir surface for solar power," he said. The reservoir surface should be leased, even to private players who can pay the lease rent and win the bid, he said.
Water-front tourism on irrigation lands that are not used is another suggestion. "We have done GIS mapping of irrigation project lands which are not used and are not under submergence. These can be leased for water-front tourism. But this should be done with large-scale tourism companies who maintain environmental standards with waste water and effluent recycling."
Pardeshi said the irrigation department should also consider charging a higher rate to municipalities when they supply water for commercial use."When I was municipal commissioner, the BMC made a profit of around Rs 1,000 crore a year on water. This was because of the supply for commercial use to malls, theatres and industry. But the irrigation department did not make such profits because it gives bulk water to municipalities for both domestic and commercial use," said Pardeshi."We are formulating a policy under which municipalities receiving will have to pay a certain amount to the irrigation department for the water supplied for commercial use," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Step down': Iran's exiled 'crown prince' Reza Pahlavi says he's ready to take over, Khamenei will receive fair trial if he resigns
Iran's exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi called for a regime change. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last shah, urged Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to step down now if he wants to get a fair trial, something that Reza said Khamenei never gave to any Iranian. Reza Pahlavi announced that he was ready to take the regime over and he was setting up a new secure platform for dissidents and internal opponents of the regime to coordinate their efforts to overthrow the disctatorrshio and put the country on the path of a "free and democratic" future. 'We are a proud, ancient and resilient people,' Pahlavi told a press conference in Paris on Monday. 'To my compatriots: This is our moment. I am with you. Let us build this new Iran together.' 'I am here today to submit myself to my compatriots to lead them down this road of peace.' 'This is our Berlin wall moment' Pahlavi said he has spoken with people across Iran and realized that this is Iran's Berlin Wall moment. "But like all moments of great change, it comes fraught with danger. We stand at a crossroads. One road leads to bloodshed and chaos. The other—to a peaceful and democratic transition," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The destruction of the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow has diminished the regime's domestic nuclear enrichment, he said. "But it does not diminish the regime's intent to acquire and use nuclear weapons. The regime, enraged and emboldened, will be seeking revenge and can acquire nuclear weapons from other rogue regimes like North Korea," he said. Reza Pahlavi offered his plan for transition and national renewal based on three core principles: Iran;s territorial integrity, individual liberties and equality of all citizens, and separation of religion and state. "We have already launched the Iran Prosperity Project (IPP) , a comprehensive plan for the economic reconstruction and social stabilization of our country in three phases. The Emergency Phase of the first 4-6 months, the Establishment Phase of 18-24 months, and the Normalization Phase which is long term," he said. Reza Pahlavi pushes for regime change; US unsure While the exiled crown prince pushed for a regime change in Iran, the US is not certain of what it wants. Vice President JD Vance categorically said the US is not in a war with Iran and is not attempting regime change in Iran. But President Donald Trump contradicted that claim and said if the current regime in Iran is unable to 'Make Iran Great Again', then why there would not be a regime change. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to Make Iran Great Again, why wouldn't there be a Regime Change? MIGA!!!" Trump posted on Truth Social.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump joins Iran war: US bombs nuke sites-But did the Ayatollah just win?
AI image for representation only. At 2:00am Tehran time, American B-2 bombers unleashed the most direct attack on Iran since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979. Three nuclear sites-Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan-were pummeled with over 75 precision-guided munitions and Tomahawk missiles in a campaign US President Donald Trump claimed 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But the impact wasn't only military. It was psychological. It was political. And it was, perhaps, paradoxical. Why it matters Trump's dramatic decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities may have delivered a powerful message to Tehran but also an unintended gift: strengthening Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his regime that was increasingly isolated, domestically unpopular, and weakened by years of internal dissent. Trump's move, aimed at crushing Iran's nuclear ambitions and demonstrating American might, also reshaped the internal dynamics of the Islamic Republic. In the face of foreign aggression, even Iranians who oppose the regime found themselves rallying behind the flag - handing Khamenei a rare nationalist boost at a time of political fragility. A group of prominent Iranian civil society figures - long-time critics of the regime - condemned the attacks, calling them 'detrimental to the human rights and democracy-seeking efforts of Iranian civil society.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Envie de tuer le temps sur l'ordinateur ? Ce jeu de l'an 2025 est un must ! Forge Of Empires Jouer Undo The big picture The US military, led by B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, struck three major Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo , Natanz, and Isfahan. These facilities were at the heart of Iran's uranium enrichment program. Trump declared 'monumental damage' to the sites, writing on Truth Social that the deepest damage occurred 'far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' Israel followed up with its own barrage, including strikes on missile sites and suspected command centers in Tehran, Kermanshah, and Bushehr. But satellite imagery and expert assessments tell a more complicated story: while Iran's nuclear infrastructure took a hit, much of its enriched uranium and centrifuges may have been relocated ahead of the attack. The road to Fordo The nuclear facility at Fordo was built deep in a mountain, out of reach of most conventional weapons-except America's 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. Trump deployed them for the first time in combat, declaring the target a 'bullseye.' Satellite imagery showed gaping craters at the site. But what about what was inside? Iranian officials, including those from the Atomic Energy Organization, claimed their most enriched uranium had already been moved. Intelligence experts can't confirm the extent of underground damage, and some believe Iran's nuclear assets are now more dispersed-and harder to target-than ever. 'This is an incomplete strike,' Jeffrey Lewis, a weapons expert and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told AP. 'If this is all there is, here's what's left: the entire stockpile of 60% uranium, which was stored at Isfahan in tunnels that are untouched,' Lewis added. What they're saying 'Mr Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it,' declared Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari. Trump doubled down on social media: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, told CNN: 'This never would have happened had they had nuclear weapons … They may now sprint toward one.' Zoom in The nationalist reflex Trump triggered is deeply rooted in Iran's modern history. Since the CIA-backed coup in 1953 that toppled a democratically elected government, suspicion of foreign interference - especially from the US - has been a defining theme in Iranian politics. Even during the recent mass protests against the clerical regime, few demonstrators called for Western intervention. That ethos flared again after the strikes. A mural in Tehran was repainted recently: the American flag, with stars replaced by skulls and stripes as falling bombs, towers over a main boulevard. The 'Death to America' slogan remains etched into public spaces. The result: a regime many Iranians despise was suddenly able to posture as the protector of the nation. Between the lines There's a profound irony in the timing. Before the attack, Tehran's regime faced growing unrest. The once-vibrant reform movement had long since faltered. Crackdowns on protests in cities and small towns had turned many Iranians against their rulers. Trust in the ballot box was gone. Ayatollah Khamenei - aging and reportedly nominating his own successors - was presiding over a brittle system. But by launching military strikes on Iranian soil, the US - and Israel - allowed the Islamic Republic to reclaim a narrative it had lost: that of resisting imperial aggression. This sentiment is not just theoretical. In practice, it has meant increased government control, tighter censorship, and the silencing of opposition voices - now easier to justify under the guise of national defense. The intrigue The attack has sparked geopolitical ripple effects far beyond Iran: Russia: Hosting Iranian officials, Moscow warned of 'Pandora's box' being opened by US aggression. The UN: Secretary-General António Guterres feared a 'rathole of retaliation.' Global oil markets: Prices surged to their highest levels since January amid fears of wider conflict. What Trump wanted vs. what he got: Trump aimed to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, deter future threats, and perhaps even force a regime change. He invoked strength, promising peace through overwhelming power. But what he may have achieved Reigniting anti-American fervor inside Iran. Rallying Iranians around a regime they otherwise loathed. Escalating a conflict that could outlast his presidency - and potentially ensnare the US in another Middle East quagmire. Vice President JD Vance tried to reassure Americans that the US does not seek regime change. But Trump undercut that message himself, posting: 'Why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' What's next Iran's next steps could define the region's future - and Trump's legacy. The regime's military options: Missile retaliation: Already underway with strikes on Tel Aviv and threats against US bases. Strait of Hormuz closure: I ran could throttle one-fifth of the world's oil supply, sparking a global crisis. Proxy attacks: From Lebanon to Yemen, Iran's network of allies could be activated, though many have been degraded by Israel's recent offensives. But there's another, quieter possibility: a dash to the bomb. Experts fear that humiliation on the global stage may convince Iranian leaders that only a nuclear deterrent can ensure their survival. Darya Dolzikova, a nonproliferation expert at the Royal United Services Institute, warned that Iran may have 'already moved' critical nuclear materials to unknown sites. The IAEA has yet to inspect the bombed facilities to confirm the extent of the damage. The bottom line Trump's strikes may have damaged centrifuges, but they didn't decapitate the Iranian regime. Instead, they may have reinvigorated it - uniting a fractured society against a common foreign enemy and setting the stage for a prolonged and dangerous confrontation.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's legal blitz on Harvard's international students ignites major court clash
A fierce confrontation is escalating between Harvard University and the Trump administration , a battle that cuts far deeper than immigration policy. At stake is the very essence of Harvard's role as a global academic institution. What began as a series of bureaucratic moves has erupted into a full-fledged legal conflict, with President Donald Trump launching an aggressive campaign to dismantle Harvard's ability to host international students. This is no mere regulatory dispute; it is a strategic attempt to undermine the university's international character, challenge its academic independence, and reshape the landscape of elite higher education. As federal courts step in to intervene, the conflict has morphed into a defining legal showdown, one that could set powerful precedents for how far a government can go in targeting universities through immigration law. Homeland Security's certification crackdown blocked for now The Trump administration, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), attempted a rare and aggressive move in May, revoking Harvard's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a designation required to host foreign students. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo The rationale? The administration exercised its authority under SEVP, which typically applies to schools failing accreditation, lacking faculty, or operating outside educational norms. Harvard swiftly sued, accusing the administration of violating its own federal procedures. The legal response proved effective. US District Judge Allison Burroughs first issued a temporary restraining order, and on Friday, elevated it to a preliminary injunction, pausing DHS's efforts until the case is resolved. Still, the court left room for continued oversight. Burroughs emphasized the government's authority to carry out standard administrative review processes. DHS responded by issuing a 'Notice of Intent to Withdraw,' signaling that the showdown is far from over. 'Today's order does not affect the DHS's ongoing administrative review,' Harvard clarified to students. 'Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University's certification' as reported by the Associated Press. Trump blocks entry for Harvard students , Harvard hits back Escalating the confrontation, Trump personally issued a presidential proclamation earlier this month that barred new Harvard international students from entering the United States, this time invoking sweeping executive powers that allow the president to restrict classes of foreign nationals. Harvard's legal team argued the move was legally baseless. The proclamation, they contended, misused the phrase 'class of aliens,' targeting individuals solely based on their academic destination rather than any real security threat. Judge Burroughs once again stepped in, temporarily suspending the entry ban. A ruling on Harvard's request for a longer-term injunction is still pending. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard said in a message to international students as reported by the Associated Press. At the heart of Trump's directive was an accusation that Harvard had failed to properly address antisemitism on campus, particularly during pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Trump argued that the university was no longer a 'suitable destination' for foreign scholars. Harvard President Alan Garber responded that the university had enacted reforms to combat antisemitism but would not yield to politically driven pressure. State Department tightens visa reviews , expands scrutiny nationwide Secretary of State Marco Rubio intensified the campaign by ordering US consulates to begin scrutinizing the social media accounts of visa applicants affiliated with Harvard. Just days later, the State Department broadened the effort nationwide. Consular officials were instructed to evaluate foreign students' online presence for posts deemed hostile to the US government, institutions, or foundational values. New instructions also urged visa officers to prioritize applications to universities with fewer than 15% international students, a demographic threshold Harvard and nearly 200 other US institutions surpass. All eight Ivy League schools fall into this category. Applicants have also been told to make their social media accounts public, a move critics argue undermines privacy rights and academic openness. Global fabric of Harvard under threat Harvard's reliance on international students runs deep. More than 7,000 individuals are currently sponsored on F-1 and J-1 visas. About 26% of the overall student body comes from abroad, but the percentage climbs sharply in certain schools and programmes. Harvard Kennedy School: 49% international students Harvard Business School: 33% from overseas Harvard Law School's LL.M. programme: 94% international students These numbers reflect Harvard's global reach and illustrate the magnitude of what's at stake. Political retaliation or legitimate policy? The administration's assault comes in the broader context of Harvard rejecting federal demands concerning campus protests, admissions, and faculty hiring. While conservative voices argue the federal actions are justified responses to institutional bias and antisemitism, Harvard claims retaliation. The university insists its compliance with immigration and academic regulations is above board, and that the federal government is abusing its power. 'Harvard is fully committed to compliance,' the university reiterated, pushing back against accusations of wrongdoing and asserting its right to academic independence. Legal precedents in the making Judge Burroughs' recent injunction buys time, but a definitive legal judgment is still on the horizon. The broader constitutional questions, whether presidential powers extend to targeted academic suppression, and whether immigration tools can be weaponized against ideological opponents, are yet to be settled. This legal drama may ultimately set new benchmarks for academic freedom, immigration policy, and the limits of executive authority. For now, Harvard's international students remain suspended in uncertainty, caught in a courtroom war that will likely echo through American higher education for years to come. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
