Punjab on alert: All-night blackout at Gurdaspur, fireworks ban in 6 districts
The deputy commissioner of Gurdaspur issued an order on Thursday, saying that a blackout will be held in the district from 9 pm to 5 am, starting tonight, until further orders. However, no blackout will be conducted in cantonment zones or military areas.
Other districts clarified that blackouts will be imposed based on real-time alerts from the Army or Air Force. 'Blackouts will be conducted based on alerts from the Army or Air Force, but precautionary measures will be taken immediately for public safety,' Tarn Taran Deputy Commissioner Rahul said. Similar inputs were shared by administration officials from Sangrur, Patiala, Faridkot, Jalandhar, Fazilka, Ferozepur, and Pathankot.
'Considering the recent developments, we cannot take things lightly. The public must follow blackout protocols. The midnight blackout conducted on May 7-8 was a signal to make people aware that such situations may arise at any time following a siren,' said Aditya Uppal, Deputy Commissioner of Pathankot.
Himanshu Aggarwal, Deputy Commissioner of Jalandhar, added, 'Blackouts will be enforced as and when red alerts are issued by the Air Force or Army.' Faridkot Deputy Commissioner Poonamdeep Kaur echoed a similar stance.
Recent information released by the Ministry of Defence has further heightened public concern. According to the update, potential air attacks on Amritsar, Pathankot, Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, and Bathinda were neutralised by the Indian Air Force during the night of May 7-8. 'After hearing this, we can expect regular blackouts to become the norm,' a resident from Sangrur said.
In Amritsar, task force formed to curb hoarding
Meanwhile, Sakshi Sahni, the deputy commissioner of Amritsar, announced a complete ban on the use of fireworks — including aerial crackers and Chinese firecrackers — during weddings, celebrations, and religious events within the district.
This measure, enacted under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is intended to prevent public panic and maintain law and order. The ban will remain in effect until further notice, the order said.
To curb hoarding and black marketing of essential items such as food, petrol, diesel, fodder, and other daily necessities, Sahni formed a special task force and also released helpline numbers for public assistance.
The task force will be led by the district food supply controller and the district mandi officer, who have been directed to take strict action to prevent black marketing, hoarding, and artificial shortage of goods in the district.
As per the issued guidelines, this team will conduct inspections and take immediate action against any individual or institution found involved in unethical trade practices. Sahni stated that uninterrupted access to essential items at fair prices will be ensured, especially for the vulnerable sections of society.
She further clarified that no individual, trader, or organisation will be allowed to hoard essential goods such as grains and related items, fodder, milk and dairy products, petrol, diesel, and other fuels. Any violation in this regard will be dealt with strictly, the order said.
The deputy commissioner assured that there is no shortage of essential items and appealed to the public not to panic or resort to hoarding, and gave assurance that the administration is fully prepared to maintain supply stability across the district.
Meanwhile, the deputy commissioner of Tarn Taran issued orders for all government, aided, and private schools in the district to remain closed from May 8 to May 11. This decision has been made to ensure the safety of the children, the order said.
* Install thick blackout curtains or blinds on all windows.
* Prepare your home to operate without lights during the blackout.
* Use light-blocking materials like dark cloth or cardboard.
* Ensure outdoor lights are switched off during drills.
* Test your preparedness by simulating a blackout with family members.
* Familiarise yourself with the air raid siren sounds (e.g., long wails for alerts, short bursts for all-clear).
* Identify the nearest shelter locations, such as basements, underground car parks, or designated safe zones.
* Keep a basic emergency kit ready, including a torch with extra batteries, water bottles, non-perishable food items, first aid kit etc
* Immediately stop outdoor activities and proceed to the nearest shelter.
* Avoid using phones unless necessary to keep communication lines free for emergencies.
* Follow instructions from authorities or wardens present in the area.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
When politics reeks of bitterness, misconduct
Eleven days from now, India will be celebrating its 78th Independence Day. Eight decades is a long enough time to take stock of our democracy and polity. Are we moving in the right direction? Are today's politicians working towards strengthening our democracy as envisioned by the founding fathers of the Republic? What better way to celebrate the approaching Independence Day than to seek answers to these probing queries? We, as citizens, have some basic expectations from our Parliament. It should not be reduced to an arena of vote politics. (Hindustan Times) Let's address the first question. Have a look at the debate over Operation Sindoor. Indians were hoping for the ruling party to put all the facts in the public domain while the Opposition would articulate its criticism and chip in with constructive suggestions. However, what unfolded was completely different. The Opposition got a fair chance to put their views forward in both houses. The ruling dispensation showcased all their facts, but the entire exercise fell far short of clearing the doubts assailing the minds of the citizens. We, as citizens, have some basic expectations from our Parliament. It should not be reduced to an arena of vote politics. Unfortunately, that's become the norm now. I have been a student of parliamentary debates. Our politics has been steadily degenerating. Bitterness has seeped into it, and politicians speak irresponsibly. Political parties of every hue are equally responsible for it. Even before the debate started, the first week of the monsoon session was a wash-out due to vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar's surprise resignation. The media corridors were rattled by Dhankhar's resignation bomb at the end of the first day of the monsoon session. Political developments that day unfolded like a suspense thriller. No one could figure out the climax till the very end. In the morning, he came as usual to the Rajya Sabha, conducted its proceedings, and met leaders from the treasury benches and the Opposition. In the afternoon, he met BJP president JP Nadda and parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju. It seems the talks couldn't be concluded, so another meeting was convened in the evening. Nadda and Rijiju didn't attend, but the minister of State for parliamentary affairs, L Murugan, was present. What transpired in the afternoon meeting? Why didn't the senior ministers attend the evening meeting? Was there any difference of opinion between them and Dhankhar? Did the vice-president resign on his own? Or was he forced to quit? What will Dhankhar's next move be? Will he follow in the footsteps of former Jammu and Kashmir governor Satya Pal Malik? Or will he quietly bow out? Queries, conjectures, and concerns remain. It seems we are turning into a democracy that's bogged down in a maze of uncertain, dubious, and unnecessary debates. Dhankhar came into the limelight when he was made the governor of West Bengal. From the moment he entered the Raj Bhawan, he trained his guns on the chief minister, Mamata Banerjee. His words and deeds didn't go down well with those who preferred political propriety. This was the reason when he was made the vice-president, his detractors thought he had been rewarded for what he did in West Bengal, as Banerjee is considered the BJP's prime foe. As vice-president, it was his responsibility to conduct Rajya Sabha proceedings fairly and impartially. The way he conducted the proceedings in his early days raised many eyebrows. Accusations were levelled against him, but he was unfazed. Those opposed to the BJP said he was doing all this as he had an eye on the President's post. Initially, people were surprised by his sudden exit, but there's very little sympathy for him now. Unfortunately, such unpleasant incidents are growing. Look at the recently concluded session of the Bihar Assembly. It was the last session of the current term, a time to say polite goodbyes and warm wishes for the journey ahead. But it too degenerated into a mudslinging fest peppered with debased language, creating situations where it felt as if the leaders would come to blows. Bihar will go to the polls later this year, and the elections may turn into an ugly battle of bitterness and allegations. The Election Commission of India (ECI) undertook a special intensive revision of the electoral roll. The Opposition alleges it's a conspiracy to delete their voters from the list. The ECI didn't budge. Chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar curtly retorted: Should the ECI list the dead and foreigners in the roll? The Supreme Court also questioned the timing of the revision. The Opposition had alleged something completely different during the Maharashtra assembly elections. It's not clear who's right or wrong, but it's clear that those gracing constitutional posts are more interested in confrontation than building consensus. Let's address the second question. Are we heading in the right direction? At a time of ever-expanding hate and the normalisation of debased language and political misconduct, it would be tough to suggest that our journey ahead will be smooth. Political parties have devoted decades to creating linguistic, regional and social divides instead of bridging them. They have conveniently forgotten that the growing divides can drown them as well. Dhankhar is only its latest victim. Let's address the third question. The future is shaped by the present; the actions of today build the foundations of a new order. That's the law of nature. If so, can anyone bet confidently on the future when the present is roiled by discontent, inconsistency, incongruity and apprehension? Shashi Shekhar is the editor-in-chief, Hindustan. The views expressed are personal.
India.com
23 minutes ago
- India.com
No Consensus, Just Conflict: Operation Sindoor Debate Sinks Into Bitter Blame Game Between Govt And Opposition
New Delhi: The brief political unity witnessed in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent military conflict with Pakistan seems to have unravelled following the surprise ceasefire announcement on May 10. This week's marathon three-day debate in Parliament on Operation Sindoor laid bare the widening gulf between the government and the Opposition. It reinforces the notion that in today's India, consensus is the exception, not the norm. The debate gave an opportunity to the leaders of both the government and the Opposition to show unity against terrorism coming from Pakistan. While many speakers across party lines called for a common stance, their speeches exposed deep divisions. The Opposition left no stone unturned to corner the lawmakers and pressed for answers on critical issues such as security and intelligence lapses preceding the Pahalgam attack, accountability for those failures, losses suffered by the Indian Air Force, and the true nature of US involvement. Notably, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose not to respond in the Rajya Sabha, delegating the reply to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, which triggered an Opposition walkout. From the government's perspective, the needle moved favourably, for instance, Union Home Minister Amit Shah confirmed the elimination of the Pahalgam terrorists, and Prime Minister Modi asserted that "no global leader" had urged India to halt its military operation. Meanwhile, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar put a full stop to speculations regarding New Delhi's differences with Washington, including issues of deportations, visas, and student concerns, aimed at closing talks around Trump's role in India-Pakistan ceasefire. However, the Opposition remained unsatisfied. Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi challenged the Prime Minister to publicly refute US President Donald Trump's claims of brokering the ceasefire, labeling the challenge 'political rhetoric.' While the PM skipped any mention of Trump and his repeated assertions of having brokered the ceasefire, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh sidestepped questions regarding the fighter jets lost on the first day of conflict, instead urging a results-focused perspective, saying, 'In any exam, the result matters. We should see whether a student is getting good marks and not focus on whether his pencil was broken or his pen was lost.' Congress's Nationalist Strategy In an uncharacteristic move, the Congress party adopted a nationalist stance to continue putting pressure on the government. This approach aimed to score political points by portraying the government as weak on defense. However, the tables turned with former Home Minister P. Chidambaram's suggestion that the Pahalgam attackers might have been "homegrown terrorists", rather than Pakistan-backed. This offered the government an opportunity to criticise the grand old party's inconsistent position. Rahul Gandhi's speech was notably combative, alongside his sister, Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra recalled the resignations of Vilasrao Deshmukh as Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shivraj Patil as Union Home Minister after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to emphasise government accountability. Gandhi accused the Prime Minister of prioritising his image over the armed forces' freedom to operate, warning that 'the forces should be used with freedom and for the national interest' and urged a decisive military effort to 'defeat terrorism once and for all.' 'It is dangerous at this time for the Prime Minister to use the forces to protect his image. It is dangerous for the country. The forces should only be used in the national interest, and the forces should be used with freedom. If you want them to be used … then go all the way, fight properly and defeat them once and for all," he said. Historical Echoes In Debate The discussion frequently revisited historical parallels. The Congress party members highlighted Indira Gandhi's role in the creation of Bangladesh despite US pressure, contrasting it with the current ceasefire announcement influenced by the US. Meanwhile, the government drew attention to the Congress's perceived failings during critical moments, such as Partition, the wars of 1947–48 and 1965, the Indus Waters Treaty, and the 1962 war with China, to question the Opposition's credibility on national security. While the Congress remains burdened by its political legacy, this debate underscored the broader polarisation within Indian politics. Despite shared concerns over terrorism, the parties remain entrenched in mutual recriminations. With other INDIA bloc parties siding with the Congress in criticism of the government, the opposition front remains fragmented under intense BJP scrutiny.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Misunderstanding India's advocacy for multipolarity
A growing number of liberal American geopolitical analysts and Donald Trump, whom they despise, have a few things in common — they are opposed to India's relationship with Russia, its association with Brics, and advocacy for multipolarity. Trump's criticism of India is sharp and direct, of course. The Trump presidency will end in another three-and-a-half years, but this rare consensus in Washington DC, on India's search for multipolarity will remain. This is something, therefore, Indian strategic thinkers must reflect on. Put differently, with or without Trump around, India's advocacy for multipolarity will continue to haunt New Delhi, particularly given the structural transformations underway in the international system today. India's foreign policy is not about indecision. It is a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. (AFP) Let's begin by unpacking some important aspects of multipolarity, given its many layers of complexity and ambiguity. First, notwithstanding the general perception about the virtues of multipolarity, it is becoming somewhat clear that a multipolar world is not as pretty as we had imagined it to be. Even the imperfect multipolarity that we have today — with poles of various sizes and influence competing for power — seems messy, incoherent, confusing and hard to navigate. If this is what a system that is not even really multipolar looks like, what will a true multipolar system look like? Second, notwithstanding the messy nature of the quasi-multipolar order today, New Delhi remains committed to a multipolar world. The desire for multipolarity is deeply entrenched in India's tradition of non-alignment, which is one of the first principles of Indian foreign policy. When faced with a difficult choice, the first strategic instinct of political New Delhi is to be non-aligned, neutral, and multi-aligned. Mostly in that order. I would not view that as strategic escapism. It is very much part of the DNA of Indian foreign policy. It would also be wrong to mistake non-alignment (or a variation thereof) as not valuing friendships, loyalty or solidarity: In fact, India's foreign policy history is rich with examples of friendships, loyalty and solidarity. In that sense, India's foreign policy is not about indecision; it's a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. This is where the country's fascination with a multipolar world becomes crucial, for there is no genuine autonomy, balance and agency in world affairs without true multipolarity. Third, India's complaints about American unipolarity are on a steady decline, even as the rhetoric remains. It would be a mistake, however, to view New Delhi's rhetoric against unipolarity as merely, or primarily, directed against the US because today, New Delhi is less anxious about America's global unipolarity than a potential Chinese unipolarity in Asia. While America's declining global unipolarity is mostly a theoretical concern for New Delhi, the prospect of a China-led unipolar Asia is the true source of anxiety. In that sense, New Delhi's desire for multipolarity is also an attempt at ensuring the absence of a unipolar (China-dominated) Asia. Therefore, even if New Delhi is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia rather than US unipolarity globally, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow. There are two reasons why New Delhi would be concerned about China's unipolarity in Asia. One, this could mean that China might set the rules of geopolitical engagement in Asia. Once much of Asia falls under China's influence, it will be harder for New Delhi to push back Chinese hegemony. Two, a rise of Chinese unipolarity in Asia might prompt the US to think of accommodating China in a G2 format, especially if the American nativist and isolationist tendencies persist. In an ideal world, New Delhi's articulations must make a clear distinction between American unipolarity and Chinese attempts at unipolarity in Asia, but doing so is not easy for a variety of reasons, including that New Delhi continues to resist aspects of American unipolarity and is not yet willing to acknowledge the possibility of Chinese unipolarity in Asia. But New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony, without openly resisting the growing Chinese regional hegemony or a potentially unipolar Asia, could have unintended consequences. Some US administrations, especially the current one, might interpret India's rhetoric against American unipolarity as personal rather than an academic exercise, for the most part. This could prompt an unhappy Washington to undercut India's geopolitical standing in the region, thereby indirectly aiding China's attempts at regional hegemony. This creates a paradox: India aims to counter Chinese unipolarity in Asia by promoting global multipolarity, which annoys the US, prompting it to marginalise India in the region, thereby ultimately aiding Beijing's efforts to establish hegemony in Asia. New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony could also prompt the US, which is losing influence in various parts of the world, to seek ways of strengthening its influence in spaces where it can — this could lead to accepting Chinese unipolarity in Asia. More so, if the US reacts negatively towards India, as it is doing now, it could create a fertile ground for China and Russia to fan the Indian rhetoric against the US, encourage India to proactively participate in forums and arrangements aimed at undermining US unipolarity, and generate confusion within India's strategic community about the true motives behind India's multipolarity rhetoric. All of this will further drive the geopolitical wedge between New Delhi and Washington DC. There is no easy way out. New Delhi will need to have a lot more conversations and build trust with the US. That is not easy when a president like Trump occupies the White House. Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research and the editor of INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal.
