AP: TDP man hacked to death in polling day clash with YSR Congress workers

Agencies
April 11, 2019

New Delhi, Apr 11:  A Telegu Desam Party leader from Andhra Pradesh was hacked to death in electoral clashes in Anantapur's Tadipatri.

TDP local leader Chintha Bhaskar Reddy was severely injured in clashes between the YSR Congress and TDP. He was shifted to a nearby hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.

Clashes broke out during the first phase of polling in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections between workers of the TDP and the YSRCP at various places in Andhra Pradesh even as technical glitches in Electronic Voting Machines hampered the poll process at numerous polling booths as voting got underway for 25 Lok Sabha and 175 Assembly seats.

A mandal parishad member of YSRC was seriously injured when TDP workers allegedly attacked him at a polling station in Eluru city.

In Guntakal, former MLA and contesting candidate of Jana Sena Party, Madhusudan Gupta, smashed an EVM in a fit of rage alleging that party symbols were not properly printed on the ballot unit.

A clash broke out between the YSR Congress Party and TDP workers in Puthalapattu constituency in Bandarlapalli, Andhra Pradesh following which police resorted to lathicharge.

Allagadda Assembly constituency candidate Bhuma Akhila Priya's husband was injured in a clash with the Andhra Pradesh Police.

In Kurnool, YSRCP and TDP workers pelted stones at each other.

This is the first general election in the state after bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and creation of Telangana in June 2014.

There are a total of 3,93,45,717 registered voters, including 1,94,62,339 men, 1,98,79,421 women and 3,957 transgenders.

Of the total, 10.15 lakh are first-time voters in the 18-19 age group.

As many as 2,118 and 319 candidates are in the fray for 175 Assembly and 25 Lok Sabha seats respectively.

Polling would end at 5 pm in the Left-wing Extremism-affected areas, mostly those bordering Odisha and Chhattisgarh.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 9,2020

Jun 9: Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants all 1.3 billion Indians to be “vocal for local” — meaning, to not just use domestically made products but also to promote them. As an overseas citizen living in Hong Kong, I’m doing my bit by very vocally demanding Indian mangoes on every trip to the grocery. But half the summer is gone, and not a single slice so far.

My loss is due to India’s COVID-19 lockdown, which has severely pinched logistics, a perennial challenge in the huge, infrastructure-starved country. But more worrying than the disruption is the fruity political response to it. Rather than being a wake-up call for fixing supply chains, the pandemic seems to be putting India on an isolationist course. Why?

Granted that the liberal view that trade is good and autarky bad isn’t exactly fashionable anywhere right now. What makes India’s lurch troublesome is that the pace and direction of economic nationalism may be set by domestic business interests. The Indian liberals, many of whom are Western-trained academics, authors and — at least until a few years ago — policy makers, want a more competitive economy. They will be powerless to prevent the slide.

Modi’s call for a self-reliant India has been echoed by Home Minister Amit Shah, the cabinet’s unofficial No. 2, in a television interview. If Indians don’t buy foreign-made goods, the economy will see a jump, he said. The strategy — although it’s too nebulous yet to call it that — has a geopolitical element. A military standoff with China is under way, apparently triggered by India’s completion of a road and bridge near the common border in the tense Himalayan region of Ladakh. It’s very expensive to fight even a limited war there. With India’s economy flattened by COVID, New Delhi may be looking for ways to restore the status quo and send Beijing a signal.

Economic boycotts, such as Chinese consumers’ rejection of Japanese goods over territorial disputes in the East China Sea, are well understood as statecraft. In these times, it’s not even necessary to name an enemy. An undercurrent of popular anger against China, the source of both the virus and India’s biggest bilateral trade deficit, is supposed to do the job. But is it ever that easy?

A hastily introduced policy to stock only local goods in police and paramilitary canteens became a farcical exercise after the list of banned items ended up including products by the local units of Colgate-Palmolive Co., Nestle SA, and Unilever NV, which have had significant Indian operations for between 60 and 90 years, as well as Dabur India Ltd., a New Delhi-based maker of Ayurveda brands. The since-withdrawn list demonstrates the practical difficulty of bureaucrats trying to find things in a globalized world that are 100% indigenous.

Free-trade champions fret that the prime minister, whom they saw as being on their side six years ago, is acting against their advice to dismantle statist controls on land, labor and capital to help make the country more competitive. Engage with the world more, not less, they caution. But Modi also has to satisfy the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the umbrella Hindu organisation that gets him votes. Its backbone of small traders, builders and businessmen — the RSS admits only men — was losing patience with the anemic economy even before the pandemic. Now, they’re in deep trouble, because India’s broken financial system won’t deliver even state-guaranteed loans to them.

The U.S.-China tensions — over trade, intellectual property, COVID responsibility and Hong Kong’s autonomy — offer a perfect backdrop. A dire domestic economy and trouble at the border provide the foreground. Big business will dial economic nationalism up and down to hit a trifecta of goals: Block competition from the People's Republic; make Western rivals fall in line and do joint ventures; and tap deep overseas capital markets. The first goal is being achieved with newly placed restrictions on investment from any country that shares a land border with India. The second aim is to be realized by corporate lobbying to influence India's whimsical economic policies. As for the third objective, with the regulatory environment becoming tougher for U.S.-listed Chinese companies like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., an opportunity may open up for Indian firms.

All this may bring India Shenzhen-style enclaves of manufacturing and trade, but it will concentrate economic power in fewer hands, something that worries liberals. They’re moved by the suffering of India’s low-wage workers, who have borne the brunt of the COVID shutdown. But when their vision of a more just society and fairer income distribution prompts them to make common cause with the ideological Left, they’re quickly repelled by the Marxist voodoo that all cash, property, bonds and real estate held by citizens or within the nation “must be treated as national resources available during this crisis.” Who will invest in a country that does that instead of just printing money?

At the same time, when liberals look to the business class, they see a sudden swelling of support for ideas like a universal basic income. They wonder if this isn’t a ploy by industry to outsource part of the cost of labor to the taxpayer. Slogans like Modi’s vocal-for-local stir the pot and thicken the confusion. The value-conscious Indian consumer couldn’t give two hoots for calls to buy Indian, but large firms will know how to exploit economic nationalism. One day soon, I’ll get my mangoes — from them.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 3,2020

Indore, Feb 3: Senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh on Sunday attacked the Centre for conferring the Padma Shri on Pakistan-origin singer Adnan Sami, who became an Indian citizen in 2016.

Addressing "Save the Constitution, Save the Country" rally here in Madhya Pradesh, Singh said Sami's father had "pounded India with bombs" when he was serving with the Pakistani Air Force (PAF).

"Since Sami is an artist who has come from Pakistan, I had recommended his case to the Indian government for citizenship. He has got Indian citizenship under the Modi government," the Congress leader said, adding that he never made any recommendation to the government for conferring Padma Shri on Sami.

He said Sami's father had "dropped bombs against us" while flying a Pakistan Air Force combat plane.

"In contrast, Indian Army officer Sanaullah of Assam, who had fought against the enemy, was sent to a detention camp for failing to show documents (during the Assam NRC exercise). This is the citizenship law of the Modi government," he said.

Sami, born in London to a Pakistani Air force veteran, applied for Indian citizenship in 2015 and became a citizen of the country in January 2016.

He was one of the 118 people chosen for the Padma Shri awards by the Centre last month.

Comments

Indian Citizen
 - 
Monday, 3 Feb 2020

 

Nowadays, Modi is uttering Pakistan even in his dream, while putting the India & Indians on the fence.

BSF Officer Sanaullah was deprived of his basic rights and put in the detention center while Adnan Sami was granted citizenship and conferred with prestigious "Padma Shri" Award. Really, Modi & Amit Shah duos doesn't know what they are doing in India.....what a bizzare!!!

 

Indian Citizen
 - 
Monday, 3 Feb 2020

Nowadays, Modi is uttering Pakistan even in his dream, while putting the India & Indians on the fence.

BSF Officer Sanaullah was deprived of his basic rights and put in the detention center while Adnan Sami was granted citizenship and conferred with prestigious "Padma Shri" Award. Really, Modi & Amit Shah duos doesn't know what they are doing in India.....what a bizzare!!!

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.