Three new Ministers sworn in at Raj Bhavan in the presence of CM Reddy
Hyderabad, June 8 (UNI) Telangana Governor Vishnu Dev Varma administered the oath of office to the newly appointed ministers—Adluri Laxman Kumar, Vakiti Srihari, and Gaddam Vivek Venkataswamy—at a solemn swearing-in ceremony held at the Raj Bhavan on Sunday.
The event was attended by Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, Legislative Council Chairman Gutta Sukhender Reddy, Legislative Assembly Speaker G Prasad Kumar, Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, State Ministers, several MPs, MLCs, MLAs, government advisors, corporation chairpersons, and senior officials.
Chief Minister Revanth Reddy emphasised the government's commitment to social justice and inclusiveness by inducting leaders from marginalised communities.
Gaddam Vivek, Adluri Laxman, and Vakiti Srihari represent the SC Mala, SC Madiga, and BC Mudiraj communities, respectively.
With the inclusion of Vivek and Laxman, the number of Dalit ministers in the cabinet has now reached four. Additionally, out of the seven BC MLAs elected from the Congress party, three have now been given cabinet posts, including Ponnam Prabhakar, Konda Surekha, and Vakiti Srihari.
Ramachandru Nayak, a first-time MLA from Dornakal, have appointed as the Deputy Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly. Representing the ST Lambada community, Nayak's appointment reflects the government's focus on equitable representation.
Vakiti Srihari, currently an MLA from the Maktal constituency in the erstwhile Mahabubnagar district, began his political career with the Congress party and held various grassroots leadership positions. He served as Maktal village sarpanch from 2001 to 2006 and ZPTC from 2014 to 2018.
He later rose through the ranks to become the district president of the Congress. In the 2023 Assembly elections, he won from Maktal with a majority of 17,525 votes, securing a cabinet berth under the BC quota.
Gaddam Vivek Venkataswamy, son of senior Congress leader G. Venkataswamy, studied at Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet, and earned his medical degree from Osmania Medical College.
He was elected as an MP from Peddapalli in 2009 and played a prominent role in the Telangana statehood movement, actively raising the issue in Parliament. Vivek's political journey saw him move between Congress, BRS, and BJP before returning to the Congress and winning from Chennur in 2023. His son Gaddam Vamsi is currently the Congress MP from Peddapalli.
Adluri Laxman Kumar, currently representing the Dharmapuri constituency, has been associated with the Congress since his student days. He served in various capacities in NSUI and Youth Congress, including as General Secretary at the state level.
Though he faced several electoral defeats, including in 1999, 2009, 2010, 2014, and 2018, he remained active in public life and party organisation.
In 2023, he won from Dharmapuri with a majority of 22,039 votes over former minister Koppula Eshwar and was later appointed as the Government Whip. He has now been inducted into the state cabinet for the first time.
UNI VV ARN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Defence attache's IAF loss in Op Sindoor remark sparks row: What happened
The Embassy of India in Jakarta, Indonesia, issued a clarification on Sunday, June 30, regarding comments made by India's Defence Attaché to Indonesia Captain Shiv Kumar on Operation Sindoor that suggested that the alleged losses incurred by the Indian Air Force (IAF) in Pakistan were caused by "political constraints". In a video that surfaced on social media, Captain Kumar purportedly suggested that political leadership, and not air defence capabilities, were responsible for the loss of India's aircraft. Opposition leaders seized on the remarks, accusing the government of concealing crucial details about the operation. Here's what happened. What defence attaché said about aircraft losses in Pakistan On June 10, Captain Kumar addressed a seminar titled 'Analysis of the Pakistan-India Air Battle and Indonesia's Anticipatory Strategies from the Perspective of Air Power' at a university in Jakarta. In a clip that surfaced online on Sunday, June 29, the naval officer can be heard responding to an earlier comment made by a speaker at the same event claiming that India lost "a lot of aircrafts", Kumar said, "I may not agree with him that India lost a lot of aircrafts, but I do agree ee did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or their air defence system.' He further explained, 'But after the loss, we changed our tactics and we went for the military installations. So we first achieved suppression and destruction of enemy air defence and then all our attacks could easily go through using surface-to-air missiles and BrahMos surface-to-surface missiles.' Congress accuses Centre of withholding military details Referencing the comment, Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh questioned the government's silence and transparency. 'First the Chief of Defence Staff makes important revelations in Singapore. Then, a senior defence official follows up from Indonesia. But why is the PM refusing to preside over an all-party meeting and take the Opposition into confidence?' he asked in a post on X . ऑपरेशन सिंदूर पर पहले सिंगापुर में चीफ ऑफ डिफेंस स्टाफ (CDS) ने अहम खुलासे किए। फिर इंडोनेशिया में एक कार्यक्रम के दौरान एक वरिष्ठ रक्षा अधिकारी ने उन बातों को आगे बढ़ाया। लेकिन प्रधानमंत्री सर्वदलीय बैठक की अध्यक्षता करने और विपक्ष को भरोसे में लेने से क्यों इनकार कर रहे हैं?… — Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) June 29, 2025 Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera also accused the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government of deliberately withholding information. 'The Modi government has misled the nation from the start – failing to disclose the aircraft losses during Operation Sindoor,' he said. Khera referred to earlier briefings where losses were only indirectly acknowledged, such as when Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti described the situation as a 'combat scenario' where losses were expected. The Modi government has misled the nation from the start - failing to disclose the aircraft losses during Operation Sindoor. There were oblique references to losses in air combat on 6/7 May, during a briefing by the DG Air Ops (Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti) when he said -… — Pawan Khera ???????? (@Pawankhera) June 29, 2025 'Taken out of context': Indian Embassy responds to controversy Amid the controversy, the Indian Embassy in Jakarta issued a statement on X stating that the officer's remarks were taken out of context. 'His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a misrepresentation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker,' the statement read. "The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood. It was also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure and the Indian response was non-escalatory," the embassy added. We have seen media reports regarding a presentation made by the Defence Attache at a Seminar. His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker. The presentation… — India in Indonesia (@IndianEmbJkt) June 29, 2025 Opposition calls for special Parliament session on Op Sindoor On May 31, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan confirmed with Bloomberg TV that the IAF had lost fighter jets during Operation Sindoor. While specifics regarding losses have not been disclosed, authorities have repeatedly refuted claims, made by Pakistan, of losing six aircraft.
The Wire
42 minutes ago
- The Wire
Witness to the Unheard: Remembering K.M. Salimkumar
It feels as though it happened just yesterday – the long, winding bus ride to Thodupuzha, a serene town in Kerala's Idukki district. We were en route to release Caste and the Politics of the Land (2008), a powerful work by K.M. Salimkumar. Sitting beside me was the man himself – a relentless voice for Dalit and Adivasi rights, an activist, thinker, and writer who had spent decades challenging the status quo. He passed away on June 29, after a lifetime of confronting dominant narratives with a clarity that few dared to match. During that trip, Salimkumar spoke with thoughtful determination about his political path – from early activism with the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation to his eventual estrangement from a Left movement that, in his view, skirted around the issue of caste. His words weren't bitter or sentimental, they were sharp. He argued that caste, as a deeply entrenched system of oppression in Indian society, often vanished beneath class-based rhetoric. For him, the revolutionary struggle had failed to acknowledge the lived experiences of those most marginalised. That journey wasn't just about a book, it offered a glimpse into the principled world he inhabited. Born in 1949, in a tribal family in Velliammattom panchayat in Idukki, Salimkumar rose to become a formidable voice for social justice in Kerala. His early years were shaped by Marxist liberation politics, and he was incarcerated for 17 months during the Emergency. But unlike others who moderated their stance afterward, Salimkumar intensified his critique, especially of the movements he once served. He questioned why caste was so often left out of revolutionary discourse and why land struggles didn't prioritise those without land, Dalits and Adivasis. His involvement in building political and grassroots networks was extensive. As a founder of the Dalit Unity Committee in 1999 and editor of publications like Raktapataka and Dalit Aikyashabdam, he gave platform to marginalised voices. His activism focused not on charity, but on dignity, autonomy, and rightful assertion. Salimkumar was part of a generation of leaders who re-evaluated their ideological roots, transitioning from strict Marxist lines to a framework informed by Ambedkarite thought. While many Left parties in Kerala treated caste as a secondary issue to class, Salimkumar argued it was a primary axis of oppression. He frequently reminded people that caste is not a relic of the past but a system that defines everything – from land rights to social boundaries. He openly criticised symbolic gestures like renaming Dalit colonies with sanitised, Sanskrit-inspired names. For him, such acts were attempts to cover up deeper inequalities. 'Changing names doesn't change realities,' he wrote. 'The trauma, the exclusion, the inherited shame – they all remain.' 'Negritude', K.M. Salimkumar. His collection of columns under the title Negritude reflected this radical clarity. In them, he explored themes such as Ambedkar's democratic philosophy, the erasure of tribal identity, and the contradictions in Kerala's progressive self-image. By drawing connections between caste-based and racial oppression, he built a body of work that was more than literature – it was a political statement. Salimkumar also centred B.R. Ambedkar in his vision of India's democratic future. He didn't see Ambedkar merely as a constitutional architect, but as a radical critic of social inequality and a prophet of structural reform. He cited Ambedkar's assertion that while Hindu privilege maintained Brahminical rule, true democracy meant Dalits must have full participation. He was especially vocal about the contradictions in Kerala's development model. Though the state is praised for its human development indicators, he pointed out how Dalits and Adivasis continued to face displacement and marginalisation in the name of progress. During protests like the Muthanga agitation, albeit his reservations about the struggle itself, he challenged the hypocrisy of governments that claimed to be for the people while undermining the very communities they displaced. His published works – including Dalit Ideology and Communalisation (2008), Dalit Democratic Thought (2018), Reservation in a Dalit Perspective (2018), and The Subtleties of Casteism (2021) – offer critical insights into how casteism adapts to survive even in secular and progressive settings. His critique extended beyond the obvious culprits. He held the liberal elite and even self-proclaimed progressives accountable for sustaining caste structures. In his later years, Salimkumar emphasised the importance of cultural memory and literature in political struggle. He believed that writing was an act of reclaiming identity, that memory could resist erasure, and that telling one's story was itself revolutionary. He didn't aspire to lead in the conventional sense. He wanted to bear witness—to name what others avoided, to stay rooted in difficult truths, and to never allow silence to replace justice. In an age when even dissent is being curated and softened, KM Salimkumar's legacy stands as a reminder that the fight for equality requires more than slogans—it demands unflinching truth. K.M. Seethi is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala, India. Seethi also served as Senior Professor of International Relations, Dean of Social Sciences at MGU and ICSSR Senior Fellow.
Mint
44 minutes ago
- Mint
Testimony to the enduring spirit of Indian democracy
On a summer evening in 1976, a group of people were enjoying a friendly chat at the bungalow of a prominent figure in Mainpuri city, when a frail man approached the host and prostrated at his feet. The man, a washerman from a village nearby, had a harrowing tale to tell. His ordeal started with an altercation—the person with whom he had tangled, turned out to be a relative of a police sub-inspector. This, the washerman learnt when, a few days after the incident, a police team raided his house to apprehend him for 'conspiring to uproot railway tracks with the aim of bringing about armed revolution". Fortunately for him, he was away visiting a distant relative when the raid was conducted. Else he would have landed in prison on charges framed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Misa). Though the group initially doubted the story, they found it to be true and got district authorities to resolve the matter. The washerman's case was not an aberration. Nationwide, about 35,000 people were detained under Misa (Maintenance of Internal Security Act), and more than 75,000 under the equally notorious Defence of India Rules (DIR) during the Emergency. Millions more, ranging from as young as nine to over 90 years of age, were arrested under various other laws. Politicians of all hues, barring those of the Congress and Left parties, were among the detainees. Also read | Firm and focused leadership keeps India on course What nurtured such extremes during the Emergency? The bureaucracy had turned alarmingly autocratic working hand in glove with the government. Paradoxically, the initial days of the Emergency had brought a sense of order that many welcomed. Trains began running on time. Buses adhered to schedule. Crime rates plummeted. Government employees were punctual, and the insidious practice of 'bribes" to expedite files seemed to vanish. Classes in schools ran regularly, and street hooliganism largely disappeared. Vinoba Bhave, a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi, even lauded the Emergency as an anushasan parv (festival of discipline). Middle-aged and elderly people then said it felt as if the time of the British bahadur had returned, an era where sher aur bakri ek hi ghat se paani peete the (the lion and the goat used to drink water from the same source), implying a return to strict but fair governance. It might seem astonishing to read this in 2025, but many at the time indeed considered such actions necessary. This week marks 50 years since the beginning of the anushasan parv, and the memories of those days continue to stir me. Apparently, Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency after the Allahabad high court annulled her election. However, other darker forces were at play. In the 1971 general elections she coined the slogan garibi hatao (remove poverty), fielded 442 Lok Sabha candidates and won 352 seats. But she failed to eradicate poverty and unemployment, and a disillusioned student community and labourers took to streets in protest. A woman who was called Durga during the victorious Bangladesh campaign was now a failed ruler and the Emergency was the last gambit of a terrified ruler. Also read | A nation falling for the lure of majoritarianism Tragedies such as the Turkman Gate incident unfolded in New Delhi. The government machinery, armed with 10 bulldozers and a large police contingent, descended upon the Turkman Gate area in the name of 'beautification". When residents resisted, they were fired at, resulting in an undisclosed number of deaths and injuries. The government never released the exact figures, and a muzzled media could not effectively report on it. Those were truly dark days for India. Pupul Jayakar, Indira's friend, later wrote in her book how even Indira was disturbed by these aberrations. She sought counsel from the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti, and it was only after this spiritual reflection that she decided to lift the Emergency and call for elections. The Congress lost the general elections in 1977, and the Janata Party came to power. How Indira later returned to power is another story for another day, but 50 years on, while there is regret in remembering those days, there is also immense pride that despite such a tremendous stumble, we Indians stood up, brushed the dirt and went on to not only preserve our democracy but also to achieve new milestones of development over the following decades. We can all be proud of this enduring democratic and never-say-die spirit of our countrymen. Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. Views are personal. Also read | This may be the nail in the coffin of Maoist menace
