Those responsible for failure of Kaleshwaram Barrages can't escape punishment: Minister Uttam Reddy

HYDERABAD
If any government in the State had harmed the interests of farmers and people, including in the irrigation sector, it was that of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) during the 2014-23 period, Minister for Irrigation and Civil Supplies N. Uttam Kumar Reddy alleged here on Friday.
The Minister also condemned the remarks of BRS working president K.T. Rama Rao, who blamed the Congress for the damage suffered by the Medigadda Barrage of the Kaleshwaram project and reasoned that it could be out of fear to appear before the Justice P.C. Ghose Commission of Inquiry into the irregularities in the project.
'They are shivering with the instance of just getting notices from the inquiry Commission. In case they had not committed anything wrong, why are they hesitating to depose before the judicial panel?', he said, adding that if at all they had any suspicion of bombs for the barrage damage, they could as well tell it before the Commission. Besides, it was BRS that was in power when the damage had taken place, and they could have revealed the conspiracy. They were shamelessly trying to cover up their mistakes, and the correspondence between the irrigation department and the work agency L&T shows that the barrage had problems from the beginning.
He explained that the Congress government had instituted a judicial probe to find the facts and take action as per law. The CAG, NDSA and Vigilance had all faulted the lapses in every stage of their execution, he noted.
Referring to the Pranahita-Chevella project taken up by the previous Congress in 2007, he said it was planned with ₹38,000 crore and ₹10,000 crore was spent on canals. Only one lift could have brought water from Tummidihatti Barrage to Yellampally reservoir with 100 km of gravity flow. The network thereafter was included in the Pranahita Chevella project itself and the same was executed as part of Kaleshwaram.
Of the ₹1 lakh crore spent so far on Kaleshwaram, ₹62,000 crore could have been saved and it could have been used for completing Palamuru-Rangareddy, Devadula, SLBC, Dindi, Sita Rama, Kalwakurthy, Nettempadu, Koilsagar, Bhima and others. He reminded that the CAG report had termed Kaleshwaram as a 'white elephant' for Telangana.
The Minister reiterated that those responsible cannot escape punishment as their mistakes had cost the State ₹21,000 crore spent on the Link-I of the Kaleshwaram project, which comprises three barrages and their pump houses to carry water to Yellampalli.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

17 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Karnataka SC survey: Flawed population projection, urban apathy, migration could be reasons for poor response in Bengaluru

As the enumeration of Scheduled Caste (SC) households in Bengaluru has just touched about 49% of the projected households, covered over the last month and a half, several reasons are now being attributed to poor coverage. The Commission headed by retired Judge H.N. Nagmohan Das, which is monitoring the survey, the results of which would determine the internal reservation among the 101 SCs in the State, is now exploring reasons for poor response to even the online survey in the State capital. Less than 6,000 persons have completed the online survey, even though the commission had expected at least about three lakh persons to respond. On the other hand, the coverage across the State is 91%. Flaw in projection? 'Several reasons are now being attributed to poor coverage in Bengaluru. The projected population was calculated on the anticipated annual growth at the rate of 1.5%, which may not have happened. With the City mostly having nuclear families, the size of the family may have shrunk over the years,' a source involved in the discussion told The Hindu. He added that there could have been actual 'reverse migration' from Bengaluru during Covid-19 after job losses. This seems likely considering that several districts have reported a higher population than what has been estimated. While the estimated population of SCs in the erstwhile BBMP (now Greater Bengaluru Area) is 13.62 lakh, 6.62 lakh persons have been enumerated so far in the survey that commenced on May 5. The survey is scheduled to end on June 22. Across the State, against an estimated population of 1.16 crore, the survey has far covered 1.05 crore or about 91%. Apathy main cause? One of the biggest cause of worry has been apathy among SC households in Bengaluru. The source said that apathy is seen particularly among third or fourth generation beneficiaries of reservation. The commission is also aware that many have not disclosed their identity in urban settlements due to fear of stigma or a fear of being asked to vacate the premises in case of rented accommodation. The survey, it is learnt, has been done well in about 700 slums in Bengaluru and settlements where SC population is high in number. 'The problem is in residential localities, extensions and apartments where people are not forthcoming.' The commission, it is learnt, is also keeping migrant SCs from other states out of the purview of the survey since the SC list for each State differ. 'Ultimately, a correct picture of populations will emerge once the general census is conducted,' said the source. Poor response for online survey What has perplexed the H.N. Nagmohan Das Commission is a very poor response to online survey. Though there have been about 22,100 log-ins for online survey, only about 5,700 persons have completed it. The Commission is also looking at calling the participants whose survey is incomplete to complete their survey. Sources said that the commission expected about three to four lakh persons to take online survey, especially in Bengaluru where IT literacy is high. It provided convenience to those who did not wish to identify their caste. According to sources, there could also be technical problems. 'Caste certificates older than a decade do not the unique RD number, which is must for online survey. The response has been far less than the expected three to four lakh.' Do not extend deadline There should be no further extension for the ongoing SC survey, Samajika Nyayakkagi Parishishta Jatigala Okkoota has urged. The federation of SC communities, in a statement, said that extensions have already been given to the commission to complete the process. One more extension will unduly delay the process of coming up with recommendations on international reservation that the commission is tasked with, said Basavaraj Kowthal, convener of the federation. Former Minister and Congress leader H. Anjaneya has also made a similar demand.

India Gazette

21 minutes ago

• India Gazette

BJP's Nishikant Dubey slams Rahul Gandhi over language debate:

New Delhi [India], June 22 (ANI): Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nishikant Dubey slammed Rahul Gandhi on Sunday, questioning the motives of the Congress leader to encourage learning English rather than local languages while also alluding to the 'hypocrisy' of opposing the National Education Police (NEP) 2020 for language choice stating that the 1986 NEP had similar goals. 'Rahul Gandhi ji your investigative advisor is hell bent on destroying you, this is the education policy of 1986 given by your father to the country, in this, your father is promising the country to promote Hindi, teach Sanskrit language and translate English into regional languages. This same education policy is almost in place now. Students should also grow with regional languages, changes in this have been made by Prime Minister Modi ji in 2020,' Dubey said in a post on X in Hindi. He said that while countries such as Russia, China, France, Germany, Japan and, Arab countries were 'proud of their language,' the former Congress president is proud of English 'like slaves.' 'Russia, China, France, Germany, Arab countries, Japan, Korea all are proud of their language and it is developed, why are you proud of English like slaves, we are proud of Santhali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Bengali, Malayalam, Hindi, Sanskrit,' Dubey's post read. Dubey shared screenshots purportedly of the 1986 NEP, which stated 'the policy emphasises the adoption of regional languages as the media of instruction at the university stage; vigorous effort at implementation of the three language- formula; improvement in the linguistic competencies of students at different stages of education; provision of facilities for the study of English and other foreign languages; development of Hindi as the link of Sanskrit at the university stage...' Dubey's post was made in response to another post by Rahul Gandhi where he supported people, especially people from marginalised backgrounds, learning English. He said that learning the language could be a stepping stone to equality, more job opportunities, which is what the BJP-RSS does not want. 'It is not an English dam, it is a bridge. English is not shame, it is power. English is not a chain - it is a tool to break the chains. BJP-RSS don't want poor kids of India to learn English - because they don't want you to ask questions, move ahead, and become equal,' the Congress leader said in a post on X. While also highlighting that every language is useful and beautiful for its culture, knowledge, and soul, the party leader added, 'In today's world, English is as important as your mother tongue - because it will provide employment and boost your confidence. Every language of India has soul, culture, knowledge. We have to cherish them - and at the same time teach English to every child. This is the path to an India that competes with the world, that gives every child an equal opportunity.' The Congress leader's remarks were in response to Union Home Minister Amit Shah's remarks, where he said that the languages of India are 'ornaments of our culture,' and to understand the land's history, dharma cannot be done in foreign languages. The remarks by Shah was heavily objected to by multiple people, including by Tamil Nadu Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi. (ANI)

Business Standard

22 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Explained: Can Trump go to war in Iran without approval from US Congress?

With US President Donald Trump ordering air strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—debate has intensified over the limits of presidential war powers. The strikes, the boldest US intervention yet in the Iran-Israel conflict, have not been accompanied by a formal declaration of war—prompting legal and political scrutiny in Washington. Could Trump be impeached for bypassing Congress? And what role does the War Powers Resolution of 1973 play in curbing presidential overreach? Why War Powers Resolution was introduced in 1973 The War Powers Resolution (WPR), also known as the War Powers Act, was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War—a prolonged conflict that saw major US involvement without a formal declaration of war. The resolution was designed to prevent the President from unilaterally engaging American forces in hostilities without Congressional oversight. It sought to restore the balance of power by: Requiring the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops Mandating the withdrawal of troops within 60 days unless Congress approves their continued presence Allowing a 30-day grace period for safe withdrawal What US Constitution says about declaring war The US Constitution clearly assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8), while naming the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2). This division was meant to ensure that decisions to enter large-scale military conflicts reflect democratic consensus. In practice, however, modern Presidents have increasingly relied on executive authority to conduct military operations without formal war declarations. Presidential precedents and Trump's Iran strike The US has not declared war since World War II, but has engaged in several major conflicts—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—without Congressional war declarations. Trump's own administration has previously carried out strikes in Syria (2017 and 2018) without Congressional approval. In the case of Iran, Trump has framed the air strikes as necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. US officials say the attacks were 'limited, targeted, and in coordination with Israel'—and not indicative of a wider war effort. Could Trump be impeached over war in Iran? In theory, yes. If Congress believes the President has violated the Constitution or laws such as the War Powers Resolution, it can initiate impeachment proceedings. However, such action would depend heavily on political will. Past presidents—including Barack Obama, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan—have conducted military operations without Congressional declarations of war, and none faced impeachment for it. Legal scholars remain divided over whether violation of the WPR alone constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanour' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. If Trump were to escalate the Iran conflict into a prolonged war without Congressional authorisation, and if it provokes significant domestic or international fallout, political calls for impeachment could grow louder. However, removal would still require a majority in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate—a high bar. Amid mounting tensions with Iran, US lawmakers—both Democrats and some Republicans—have sought to pass resolutions limiting Trump's ability to wage war. These efforts, while symbolically important, face procedural delays and are unlikely to override a presidential veto. The constitutional ambiguity persists: while Congress alone can declare war, the President can, and often does, launch military action unilaterally—especially if framed as a defensive or time-sensitive measure. What happens next? As of now, Trump has insisted the US does not seek regime change in Iran and has framed the strikes as a 'historic moment' to halt nuclear escalation. Iran, meanwhile, has vowed retaliation and hinted at broader regional consequences. If the US becomes drawn into a longer, bloodier conflict, pressure may mount on Congress to act—whether through legislation, funding restrictions, or impeachment. Until then, the line between presidential authority and Congressional war power remains blurred.