Flight cancelled,no alternative given;AI Express to pay Rs 88K

Hyderabad, May 19: Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao has hit out at the Narendra Modi-led NDA government over the fiscal stimulus package, accusing it of treating states like "beggars" and imposing "laughable" conditions for increasing borrowing limits under the FRBM Act.

"This is 'pure cheating. Betrayal. Jugglery of numbers. All gas. The Centre has reduced its own prestige," he said while referring to conditions linked to the increased borrowing limits for states under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act.

Rao cited international journals that had commented on whether the Union Finance Minister's aim was to revive the GDP or to reach the Rs 20 lakh crore number (the stimulus package announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi).

"This is a very cruel package. It is fully in a feudal policy and dictatorial attitude. We fully condemn this. This is not what we asked for," Rao, who had supported several measures taken by the Centre so far in the fight against coronavirus, said.

At a time when the finances of states were paralysed due to COVID-19 global pandemic, the state governments wanted funds to reach them so that they can help people in different forms, he said. "When we asked for it, you treat states like beggars, what did the Centre do? Is this the way reforms are implemented in India?" he asked during an interaction with media on Monday after a cabinet meeting.

For example, two per cent increase under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act (about Rs 20,000 crore in Telangana) has been given.

But, the conditions put are "laughable" and "very nasty" though the loan was to be fully repaid by the state, he said.

Explaining the situation, Rao said Rs 2,500 crore would be given if reforms were implemented in power sector and Rs 2,500 crore would be allowed if reforms in market committees as suggested by the central government are accepted.

"Is this a package? What is this? This cannot be called a package. Very sorry.. This is not the policy to be followed in a federal system... Then what are the state governments for?" the Telangana Rashtra Samithi supremo asked and said they were also constitutional governments and not subordinates.

The CM said he felt anguished and the way the Centre was wielding control over states was against the spirit of federalism.

"Prime Minister ji said cooperative federalism. This has proved that it is totally hollow and bogus," he added.

The state, however, has already fulfilled certain conditions, he added.

On the occasion, Rao also outlined his government's certain policy guidelines for regulatory farming proposed to be implemented.

On the additional water proposed to be drawn by the neighbouring Andhra Pradesh from Srisailam project, he said there was no question of compromising on the states interests.

Flaying Opposition criticism against his government for allegedly failing to protect the state's interests, Rao said he had sought peaceful co-existence with all the neighbouring states.

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 2: With the coronavirus lockdown in place, liquor would be delivered home by state-run retail outlets in Kerala after the left government has decided to issue special passes to tipplers, who exhibit withdrawal symptoms and have doctors prescription.

Protesting the government decision, the Kerala Government Medical Officers Association (KGMOA) wore black badges on Wednesday, but attended duty and seeking immediate withdrawal of the order, saying it was "anti-people".

As per guidelines issued by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation managing director G Sparjan Kumar, for the supply of liquor, a service charge of Rs 100 would be collected from each pass holder for meeting the delivery expenses.

Each person would be entitled to 3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and sale of wine and beer was not envisaged, the order stated.

Those not willing to undertake the home delivery, the name and details of the employee should be reported to the Head office for submission to the government, it said.

A civil police officer will have to accompany the distribution vehicle.

The sale of liquor should be only to the pass holders, limiting it to the quantity mentioned in the pass.

Any excess sale to pass holders or sales to non-pass holders is strictly prohibited, the order said.

In the order issued on Monday, the government said, following the lockdown and the closure of liquor outlets in the state, there were many instances of social issues, including suicidal tendencies shown by those who consumed liquor regularly and the state government has decided to initiate steps to resolve the matter.

Speaking to reporters, chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan said his government has not forced anyone to prescribe liquor to addicts.

He was responding to a query on the indifference of doctors towards the matter of prescribing liquor to addicts.

"If the doctors are not ready to prescribe liquor, it's fine. We are not forcing anyone to do so. We were just following the protocol which are prevalent at many places. It's been over a week. The family and friends of the addicts can gently persuade them to approach the de-addiction centres," he said.

Sparjan Kumar said the order on home delivery was just a modality, as part of the earlier order issued by the government to provide liquor under prescription.

"We have worked out a modality. We have a meeting tomorrow. Some new order has been issued by the Centre today. The meeting will discuss the implementation of the orders," Kumar told.

A person showing withdrawal symptoms has to get a doctor's prescription on his condition so that he could be provided liquor in a "controlled manner", the order added.

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has also come out against the government's move.

Meanwhile, Vimukthi, an anti-narcotics campaign launched by the state government, has till now admitted 64 patients since March 24.

"Since March 24, the day lockdown started, we have 64 patients admitted due to withdrawal symptoms. We have also registered at least 200 out patients at various de-addiction centres across Kerala," K Mohammed Resheed, Joint Excise Commissioner in charge of awareness told.

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.