Congress MP condemns Union Government for drastically reducing MGNREGS funds for Virudhunagar district

Congress MP B. Manickam Tagore, had condemned the Union Government for having drastically reducing the funds under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) for Virudhunagar district.
Addressing reporters after chairing the DISHA meeting at the collectorate here on Thursday, Virudhunagar MP said that the funds were allocated for giving employment in rural areas for 2 crore mandays in 2022-23.
'However, in the last three years, it has been drastically reduced to 1.48 lakh mandays in 2023-24; 98 lakh mandays in 2024-25 and now 55 lakh mandays for 2025-26,' Mr. Tagore said.
Charging that the Modi government was conspiring against the Virudhunagar district which did not have much agricultural work in rural areas. 'The men and women in the rural areas are now deprived of assured employment,' he said.
The DISHA meeting discussed in length about various ongoing works funded by the Centre and the State along with officials and elected representatives, he said.
The district administration has welcomed voluntary organisations to come forward to maintain the buildings of Government high schools and higher secondary schools. Such organisations can approach the Head of the respective school to know about the need.
'This project will help upgradation of the Government school buildings,' he added.
The representatives of the voluntary organisations would be honoured by Virudhunagar district administration during the Independence Day celebrations, he added.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

29 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Bhovi community seeks nomination to Legislative Council

Members of the Bhovi community have urged Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, who is also the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) chief, to nominate a member of their community to the Legislative Council. Addressing a press conference in Mysuru on Sunday, former Chairman of the Karnataka Bhovi Development Corporation G.V. Seetharamu said it was only in 1980 when a member of their community was nominated to the Legislative Council by the Congress party. Since the nomination of R. Peeranna, former MLA for H.D. Kote, in 1980 by the then Chief Minister R. Gundu Rao, not a single member of the community has been nominated to the Council, he said. The Bhovi community comes under the Scheduled Caste (SC), and is the third largest in the 1.8 crore SC population in the State, said Mr. Seetharamu, claiming that the Bhovi community's population in Karnataka is estimated to be around 18 lakh. Even though Congress has 33 MLCs in the State Legislative Council that has a total strength of 75 seats, not a single one of them belongs to the Bhovi community, he said. Mr. Seetharamu said that from his travel across the State between the 2013 assembly elections and the 2023 elections, he had seen how the Bhovi community has stood behind the Congress party. He urged Mr. Siddaramaiah and Mr. Shivakumar to recognise the dedication of the Bhovi community to the party and nominate their member to the Council. Out of the 75 members in the Legislative Council, 25 are elected by local bodies and another 25 by the members of the Legislative Assembly. While seven others are elected from graduates' constituencies, another seven are elected from the teachers' constituencies. Another 11 members are nominated by the Governor based on the recommendation of the government.

First Post

an hour ago

• First Post

Netanyahu often gets what he wants despite clashes with US presidents

A little over a month ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to have been shunted to the shadows by U.S. President Donald Trump, who hopscotched the Middle East without visiting Israel, traditionally Washington's closest regional ally. read more Just over a month ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared increasingly sidelined by US President Donald Trump, who toured the West Asia without stopping in Israel, long considered Washington's closest ally in the region. To Netanyahu's dismay, Trump lifted sanctions on neighbouring Syria and expressed interest in reviving nuclear negotiations with Iran, moves the Israeli leader has consistently opposed. But five weeks later, the narrative has flipped: U.S. bombers have struck Iran's nuclear sites—realising a decades-long goal of Netanyahu, who has long urged Washington to take military action against Tehran's atomic programme. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The episode underscores a defining trait of Netanyahu's political career: despite strained ties with successive US presidents, he often prevails in shaping U.S. policy to align with his own objectives. Over more than 30 years, Netanyahu has locked horns with American leaders—publicly challenging, defying, and sometimes even embarrassing them. Yet through both Republican and Democratic administrations, US military and diplomatic support for Israel has remained steadfast. Washington continues to be Israel's primary arms supplier and diplomatic protector. 'He probably has concluded that he always gets away with it,' said a senior UN official in Jerusalem, speaking anonymously. 'It's hard to argue otherwise.' Just weeks ago, opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of wrecking U.S.-Israel relations. Now, the recent strikes represent perhaps the closest military coordination yet between the two countries against a shared adversary. Clashes with US presidents Netanyahu's resistance to U.S. pressure has deep roots. Just a month into his first term in 1996, his blunt manner irked then-President Bill Clinton. 'Who the f— does he think he is? Who's the f—ing superpower here?' Clinton reportedly asked aides after their meeting. Nevertheless, vital U.S. military aid continued to flow. When Netanyahu returned to power in 2009, relations with President Barack Obama turned frosty, particularly over Israeli settlement expansion and the Obama administration's pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran. In 2015, Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress—without informing the White House—warning that the Iran nuclear accord would pave the way for an atomic bomb. Though Obama was reportedly furious, Washington still finalised the largest-ever U.S. military aid package to Israel the following year: $38 billion over a decade. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Many analysts believe Netanyahu relies on the enduring support of US evangelical Christians and Jewish Americans to ensure continued aid—regardless of political turbulence. Trump, Gaza and Iran When Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel in October 2023, then-President Joe Biden rushed to Israel to express solidarity and authorised large-scale arms transfers. But tensions between Biden and Netanyahu mounted as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsened. Biden eventually paused some weapons shipments and imposed sanctions on Israeli settlers accused of violence. Netanyahu welcomed Trump's return to the presidency following last November's election. But Trump, too, initially showed frustration with the prolonged Gaza war and even initiated diplomatic outreach to Iran during a meeting with Netanyahu in early April. Although Trump never publicly endorsed Israel's military strategy, he also didn't oppose it. According to US and Israeli sources, Netanyahu used the window of ambiguity to press ahead. On June 13, Israel launched a major air assault on Iran. Behind the scenes, Israeli officials pushed Trump to join, urging him to 'finish the job.' 'Mr President, Finish the job!' read large billboards across Tel Aviv. On Sunday, when U.S. bombers struck Iran's heavily fortified nuclear facilities, the moment marked a dramatic turn in the conflict—and a personal victory for Netanyahu. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Congratulations, President Trump,' Netanyahu said in a video statement. 'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.' 'May God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith,' he concluded. Trump's intervention – despite his past pledges to avoid another 'forever war' – threatens to dramatically widen the conflict, after Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign on Iran last week, with Tehran vowing to retaliate if Washington joined in. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the United States of sabotaging diplomacy after talks with European powers. 'This week, we held talks with the E3/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy,' he wrote on X. Aragchi later told reporters in Istanbul the United States and Israel had 'crossed a very big red line', asserting Iran would continue to defend itself 'by all means necessary'. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the US strikes, saying Trump's decision to 'target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In response to the US attack, Iran's armed forces said they targeted multiple sites in Israel including Ben Gurion airport, the country's main international gateway near Tel Aviv. With inputs from agencies

Time of India

2 hours ago

• Time of India

Trump promised to end wars — Now he's starting one

Donald Trump campaigned as the president who would end 'forever wars'. He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, and insisted he would resolve global conflicts through strength, not entanglement. But with a single decision, ordering strikes on Iran's core nuclear facilities on June 22, Trump has pushed the US into its most direct confrontation with Tehran in decades. By aligning with Israel's escalating shadow war, he has risked a broader regional conflict and undercut the central tenet of his foreign policy: keeping America out of new wars. 'Remember, there are many targets left… But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,' Trump said in a televised address after the attack. The strikes on Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, all key to Iran's uranium enrichment efforts, marked the most aggressive US action since the 2020 killing of General Qassem Soleimani. They have cast a long shadow over Trump's 'America First' approach. Is this Trump's Iraq moment? With the strike, Trump may have crossed a line he long promised to avoid: drawing America into another Middle Eastern conflict. Live Events Despite repeated pledges to end endless wars and prioritise domestic concerns, his decision to target Iran's nuclear sites has revived memories of 2003, when the US invaded Iraq over suspected weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Saddam Hussein. Now, it is Iran's estimated 7–10 day 'breakout time' to a nuclear bomb. In both cases, the consequences are unpredictable. Trump once styled himself as the anti-war president. He criticised the Iraq invasion, pulled troops from Afghanistan, and insisted on avoiding military entanglements. 'Great nations do not fight endless wars,' he told Congress in 2019, often claiming he was the only modern president who had not started a war. That narrative may no longer hold. At odds with his own Throughout his political career, Trump questioned US military interventions. His 2016 and 2024 campaigns both promised to scale back global commitments and bring troops home. Under the 2020 Doha Agreement, his administration committed to a full withdrawal from Afghanistan, completed in 2021 under President Biden. Trump frequently cited this as proof of his restraint. Yet the recent decision to authorise strikes in Iran has undermined that claim. According to reports in the Financial Times, Trump's rhetoric turned confrontational during a Gulf visit last month. 'We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'This is an offer that will not last forever.' Days before the strike, he left the G7 summit in Canada to consider military options. A two-week deadline given to Tehran was unexpectedly cut short, triggering the Saturday night offensive. Inside the strike The operation was led by US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers, which deployed six 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B 'bunker busters' on Fordow. These weapons are designed to target deeply fortified facilities. Natanz, a central hub for enrichment, houses thousands of IR-1 and IR-6 centrifuges. Isfahan contains uranium conversion units vital for fuel fabrication. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these facilities are crucial to Iran's nuclear ambitions. As of May 2025, the IAEA confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%, , dangerously close to the 90% threshold needed for weapons-grade material. approaching weapons-grade levels. US intelligence estimated Iran could accumulate enough fissile material for one nuclear device in under ten days. This rapidly narrowing 'breakout time' was cited by Washington and Tel Aviv as justification for the preventive strike. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Trump's move as 'bold and historic'. Risks and strategic blowback Trump's advisers reportedly believed Iran would avoid full-scale retaliation due to economic struggles and domestic unrest. According to Financial Times, the president's inner circle described the strike as a 'limited but decisive' step to neutralise a threat without prolonged involvement. 'It all depends on how the Iranian regime reacts,' said Brian Katulis of the Middle East Institute. 'Iran's regional network remains lethal and capable of spreading more instability.' Dana Stroul, a former Pentagon official, said the attack undermined Trump's diplomatic claims. 'Trump repeatedly emphasised deal-making and avoiding conflict. Yet here we are, five months into his second term, and the US is in direct conflict with Iran.'In Washington, the response was swift and polarised. While some Republicans defended the action, critics raised alarm over the lack of congressional approval. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Trump's impeachment, while Republican Thomas Massie labelled the strike unconstitutional. Senator Chris Van Hollen said, 'The war in Iraq was also started under false pretences. The US should not have joined Netanyahu in launching a war of choice.' Others in the GOP stood by Trump. House Speaker Mike Johnson described it as 'America First policy in action'. The electoral gamble At the time of the strike, Trump's approval rating stood at 46.9%, with 51% disapproval, according to RealClearPolitics. 'He still has political room, especially if Iran retaliates,' said Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment, reported FT. 'But if Americans are killed or oil prices soar, that could change quickly.' Troops on the line The US maintains around 40,000 troops across 19 bases in the region, according to the New Indian Express , citing the Council on Foreign Relations. These locations are now potential targets. Mehran Kamrava, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, highlighted the risks. 'That means there are 40,000 targets we can hit,' an Iranian commander reportedly said. Energy markets on edge Oil markets reacted swiftly. Brent crude rose 28% in just two weeks, from $61 in mid-May to $78 after the attack, according to J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Iran accounts for only 1.6% of global oil exports, but its geographic position gives it leverage. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil supply flows, could become a chokepoint in any conflict. The Economics Observatory estimates that a $10 rise in oil prices adds 0.7 percentage points to inflation and cuts GDP by 0.2% in advanced economies. The last time a similar shock occurred, during the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, it triggered stagflation in the US, UK and parts of Europe. A history of intervention This is not the first time the US has intervened in Iran with lasting consequences: In 1953, the CIA helped orchestrate a coup that ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In 1988, Operation Praying Mantis saw US naval forces sink Iranian ships. In 2020, Trump ordered the killing of General Soleimani, bringing both nations to the brink of war. Each move was described as decisive, but each deepened hostilities. When is war worth it? For Trump, the answer may be: When it prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. That has been his red line. But the strike has raised a much broader and more urgent question, for lawmakers, voters, and US allies alike: What are the limits of presidential war-making power in the 21st century? Senator Jack Reed, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, put it plainly: 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' as reported by FT.