NMC to survey and eliminate illegal garbage dumps
2
Nagpur: In a bid to make Nagpur a
garbage-free city
, the
Nagpur Municipal Corporation
(NMC) has initiated a comprehensive survey of unauthorised garbage dumping sites — commonly referred to as black spots or
Garbage Vulnerable Points
(GVPs). The civic body aims to permanently eliminate these unregulated dumping sites, which have become persistent sources of waste accumulation.The NMC's
solid waste management
department has directed assistant commissioners of all zones to conduct a joint survey with the health department, sanitation inspectors, and representatives of garbage collection agencies.
The move follows recent inspections by additional municipal commissioner (Urban) Vasumana Pant.Zonal teams have been tasked with mapping the exact locations of black spots and identifying the underlying causes, such as nearby hawkers, food vendors, juice stalls, and vegetable sellers, who may be dumping garbage in open areas.Officials have been instructed to hold direct meetings with these vendors to ensure they are integrated into the formal waste collection system.As part of the action plan, each zone must propose specific measures, such as installing dedicated bins or deploying additional collection services, to prevent further unauthorised dumping.
Operation Sindoor
Pak drones enter Indian airspace, explosions heard just hours after truce deal
Sirens, explosions in border districts after Pak breaks deal: What we know so far
'What happened to ceasefire?' J&K CM after explosions heard across Srinagar
Detailed implementation plans must be submitted to the additional commissioner's office by May 14. A review meeting to assess these plans is scheduled for May 15.The initiative aims to streamline waste management and enhance cleanliness, especially in the run-up to the monsoon season, when hygiene concerns typically intensify.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
UNSC report names TRF in Pahalgam attack, links group to Lashkar-e-Taiba
A recent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) report has named The Resistance Front, a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), in connection with the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir. The findings are expected to strengthen India's claims of Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism, news agency PTI reported. The report, compiled by the UNSC's Monitoring Team, cited an unnamed member state that said the Pahalgam attack 'could not have happened without Lashkar-e-Taiba's (LeT) support' and emphasised a link between LeT and The Resistance Front (TRF). Pakistan's denial vs UN findings Pakistan's foreign minister had mentioned in the National Assembly about managing to remove references to TRF from a UNSC press statement condemning the Pahalgam incident. The report of UNSC's Monitoring Team mention of TRF reflects how the global community sees Pakistan's 'lies and deceptive narrative', PTI cited sources as saying. According to the Monitoring Team report, five terrorists carried out the Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 civilians. 'The attack was claimed that same day by The Resistance Front (TRF), which in parallel published a photograph of the attack site. The claim of responsibility was repeated the following day,' the report noted. However, TRF retracted the claim on April 26 and made no further statements. No other group claimed responsibility for the attack. The report also documented differing opinions from UNSC member states on the TRF-LeT connection. 'One member state said the attack could not have happened without LeT's support, and that there was a relationship between LeT and TRF,' it said. 'Another member state said the attack was carried out by TRF, which was synonymous with LeT. One member state rejected these views and said that LeT was defunct.' US declares TRF a terrorist organisation The United States officially designated TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) earlier this month. The announcement was made by the US Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, 'This action underscores our commitment to counter terrorism and hold accountable those who target civilians.' He added that TRF's role in the Pahalgam attack reflects Washington's determination to enforce President Donald Trump's call for justice. According to the State Department, TRF has carried out several attacks on Indian security forces in recent years. With the FTO and SDGT designations — under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Executive Order 13224 — legal action can now be more strongly enforced against TRF and its affiliates. The department also reaffirmed that Lashkar-e-Taiba remains listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation. [With agency inputs]
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Modi must show courage to rebut Trump's claims: Rahul Gandhi
Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday alleged the Centre lacked 'political will' during Operation Sindor and said Prime Minister Narendra Modi should not sacrifice the armed forces for 'petty political gains', daring him to categorically rebut US President Donald Trump's claims about brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi speaks during the discussion on Operation Sindoor in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. (Sansad TV/ANI Grab) Gandhi cast doubts on defence minister Rajnath Singh's remarks about the Indian director general of military operation's communication with his Pakistani counterpart on May 7, challenged external affairs minister S Jaishankar's assertions on diplomacy, and hit out at the PM. 'This is a very dangerous time, and we can't afford a PM who lacks the courage to utilise the army the way it has to be used. We can't afford a PM who doesn't have the guts to say from here that Donald Trump is a liar, that he didn't stop India from fighting and is lying about the planes,' Gandhi said in the Lower House during a special discussion on Operation Sindoor Gandhi alleged that Trump has stated '29 times' that he brought about a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. 'If he is lying, the PM should say here that Trump is lying. If he has the courage of Indira Gandhi, let him say here, 'Trump, you are a liar, you did not make a ceasefire and we did not lose any planes',' Gandhi said. Participating in the discussion on Operation Sindoor in the Lok Sabha, Gandhi said Jaishankar's statement on China being a bigger economy in the context of bilateral tensions showed 'complete bankruptcy' 'He said they have a bigger economy and he said, are we going to fight China? This means he is scared. Don't allow India to be reduced to a battlefield where large powers are fused together. I want to tell Modi, the nation is above your image, politics and PR (public relations). Our forces are above your image, PR and politics. Have humility and dignity to understand and do not sacrifice our armed forces for your petty political gains,' Gandhi said. Gandhi questioned India's diplomatic success and said, 'The man behind the Pahalgam attack was Munir (Pakistan army chief Asim Munir) and he was having lunch with the US President. PM Modi never asked, why did Trump have lunch with Munir? According to this government, they have deterred Pakistan. But the mastermind was having lunch with President Trump.' Gandhi quoted Trump saying that he wanted to thank Munir for ending the war and said, 'Right now, General Munir, a US general and others are having a conference on tackling terror. I don't know which planet our external affairs minister is sitting on. Please come down.' Gandhi also questioned the policy of the new normal of the Centre, which has said that an act of terror amounts to an act of war, and argued that any terrorist can start a wart by launching a terror attack in India. 'You have taken the entire idea of deterrence and turned it upside down. This government is clueless about deterrence,' he said. India's biggest foreign policy challenge, Gandhi argued, was to keep Pakistan and China separate. He said that the Centre 'destroyed' the foreign policy as China and Pakistan got fused. 'The truth is: the government thought they were fighting against Pakistan. But they realised that the Pakistan air force was attached to the Chinese air force. The Chinese were feeding critical battlefield information and satellite information.' Gandhi said Jaishankar's ideas about a two-front war were wrong. 'We are facing China and Pakistan fused as one militarily. It is dangerous for the PM to use forces to protect his image. Forces should be used for national interest. Fight properly and defeat Pakistan once and for all.' The Congress leader also took on Rajnath Singh. He said that Indian armed forces' 'hands were tied' during Operation Sindoor as restrictions were imposed on what all they could attack. Gandhi pointed at recent statements made by captain Shiv Kumar, India's defence attache to Indonesia, and Lt. General Rahul R Singh. 'He (Rajnath) said the most shocking thing: We don't want escalation. The DGMO of India was told by the govt of India to agree to a ceasefire. You said, will not hit military targets. You told Pakistan your political will that you don't want to fight. The govt of India informed the govt of Pakistan that we have no political will. It amounts to immediate surrender in 30 minutes,' Gandhi said. Gandhi raked up the issue of how many fighter jets India lost and blamed the political leadership for it, while supporting the armed forces and said India wouldn't have lost any plane if Modi had 50% of late PM Indira Gandhi's courage. Gandhi compared the 1971 Bangladesh War with Operation Sindoor. 'Our soldiers are like tigers. But they have to be given full freedom. There must be political will and freedom of operation. If you want to use Indian armed forces, you should have political will and you have to give full freedom of operation. In 1971, there was political will. The US 7th fleet was coming to India. Then PM Indira Gandhi said, we have to do what we need to do in Bangladesh. The superpower of the world is coming with its aircraft carrier. But she had political will. Indira Gandhi gave full freedom to the armed forces. 1 lakh Pakistani soldiers surrendered and a new county was born.'
Mint
36 minutes ago
- Mint
When big tech pulls the plug: What Nayara's service disruption reveals
In a world increasingly powered by digital infrastructure, geopolitics can cajole tech giants to bring a business to a halt with the flip of a switch. Nayara Energy learnt this the hard way even though Microsoft restored its services two days later. Mint explains: What happened with Nayara Energy? Nayara Energy, an Indian refinery company, is part-owned – less than 50% – by Russia's Rosneft Oil Company. Tech giant Microsoft abruptly suspended its core communication and productivity tools that Nayara uses to comply with European Union (EU) sanctions. In response, Nayara filed a case in the Delhi High Court on Monday, alleging that its fully paid-up licences for services such as Outlook and Teams were suddenly revoked and access to its own business data was blocked without due process—effectively crippling its daily operations. Nayara (formerly Essar Oil) said it contributes about 8% of India's refining capacity, about 7% of its retail petrol pump network and an estimated 8% of polypropylene capacity. Microsoft has not commented on the court matter. On Wednesday, though, Nayara Energy informed the court that Microsoft restored its services, following which it was withdrawing the case. What is the legal position? On 18 July, the EU imposed sanctions on Nayara Energy, a buyer of Russian oil, as part of a package targeting Russian interests over the war in Ukraine. However, unlike many major economies, India lacks the legal framework to block the extraterritorial application of foreign sanctions. Nayara has argued that it is not subject to EU sanctions and that Microsoft is under no legal obligation—under either US or Indian laws—to enforce the EU's restrictions. What questions does the incident raise? While the case stands withdrawn, the episode raises two critical questions: How protected are businesses from geopolitical overreach when they depend on a single technology provider based in a different jurisdiction? And what steps can they take to safeguard themselves against such disruption? Isn't big tech supposed to be neutral? Big tech companies can no longer claim to be neutral platforms. Their global operations are inevitably shaped by the geopolitical priorities of the jurisdictions they operate from, often at the expense of customers elsewhere. Even if not legally compelled, they may choose to err on the side of compliance to avoid reputational or regulatory fallout in major markets like the US, EU or even the Middle East. Are there any precedents? In 2022, Elon Musk instructed SpaceX engineers to disable Starlink satellite internet services over Ukraine, abruptly disrupting military and civilian communication and raising issues about private tech firms exerting unilateral control in geopolitical hotspots. Canadian company Sandvine was placed on the US export entity list in 2024 because its digital tools were used by the regimes in Egypt and Belarus to censor internet traffic. The US government banned US companies from working with Sandvine, effectively cutting services through regulatory action. Many governments have also banned the purchase/use of Kaspersky antivirus software from Russia on grounds of national security. Chinese company Huawei, too, has been banned or restricted in the US, the UK, Australia, Japan, India and parts of the EU from participating in 5G and critical digital infrastructure over national security concerns. The merits and demerits of such geopolitical decisions notwithstanding, companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and Amazon reduced or even severed business ties—blocking sales, cloud services, and developer tools—in response to sanctions on Russia. Many companies did so proactively, even when not legally required in certain jurisdictions. As on 29 July, over 1,000 companies have publicly announced they are voluntarily curtailing operations in Russia to some degree beyond the bare minimum legally required by international sanctions, as per a survey done by the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management. Likewise, geopolitical tensions between the US and China have also led to companies reassessing their presence in China. Is this digital colonialism? 'What this situation really exposes," asserted Jayanth N Kolla, founder and partner at deep tech consultancy Convergence Catalyst Kolla, 'is a textbook case of digital colonialism—where big tech companies wield enormous control over the day-to-day operations and futures of other businesses." The irony, he added, is hard to miss. 'Microsoft's action was based on its interpretation of EU sanctions, but it's the same EU that is leading the global call to curb big tech's overreach. Yet here we have a real-world demonstration of that very power—one where a single decision can halt the operations of an entire energy company. This is digital colonialism in action." What must enterprises do while picking tech vendors? Companies must assess the geopolitical exposure of global technology vendors. Is a cloud provider based in a country that actively imposes sanctions or faces diplomatic tensions? Has it previously suspended services in other countries due to regulatory pressure? Nayara may have used service for internal communication in the absence of Microsoft's service, as per a Reuters article. Yet, its reliance on Microsoft illustrates the broader risk of single-vendor lock-in. If core communication and productivity tools are suddenly cut off, companies will be forced to scramble for local alternatives. The risk is amplified in sectors like energy, telecom and finance, which are tied closely to national infrastructure and economic stability. Hence, it's critical to diversify service providers by using multi-cloud or hybrid-cloud strategies. What are the alternatives to MNC tech providers? Indian companies can now turn to domestic or geopolitically neutral alternatives. Zoho (office tools), CtrlS (data centres) and HCL Technologies (cloud services) are beginning to fill this gap. While they may not yet offer the same scale or feature-richness as global players, they may offer stability and reliance. But such transitions take time, cause productivity losses, and often involve compromises in functionality or integration. What else do companies need to keep in mind? Companies must plan regular data backups, alternative access points, and migration workflows to switch providers in days, not months. Kolla pointed out that most companies maintain redundancy for core cloud infrastructure and data hosting by working with multiple vendors. "But when it comes to applications like email, Teams, and other executable services, redundancy is less common," he explained. 'Strategically, redundancy makes sense. Economically, however, maintaining a backup provider that might never be used is hard to justify." Kolla added that this incident reveals a potential market for on-demand or pay-per-use backup services for cloud-based productivity tools. How could this incident change vendor contracts? Experts said companies must include protective clauses in vendor contracts. They must ensure that provisions exist for data portability, redundancy, and advance notice in case of service suspension. Legal teams must review not only the technical service-level agreement but also the jurisdiction, force majeure, and termination clauses from a geopolitical risk perspective.
