Minister Lad warns officials at KDP meeting
Dharwad: District minister Santosh Lad called upon the officials of various departments in the district to ensure that the funds released by the central and state govt for various programmes are utilised in a time frame and targtet is achieved.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Chairing a quarterly meeting of the district level officers to review the progress in the implementation of Karnataka Development Programmes (KDP) in the district here on Monday, he said the officials of the departments concerned will be personally held responsible if the works are not taken up and the funds lapse due to their negligence. "The officers concerned will have to pay from their pockets and make the lapsed funds good," he said.
The minister informed that in this quarter alone, a total of Rs 1,300 crore has been received from both Union and state govts for various schemes. Of this, Rs 513 crore has been released, and Rs 441 crore has been spent. The overall achievement rate across projects stands at 91%.
"But this is not enough," the minister said. "If the remaining funds are returned unutilised, the officials concerned will be held financially accountable," he warned.
The minister highlighted that the district has a variety of soil suitable for cultivating diverse crops. The govt has already issued soil health cards to farmers, and officials must guide them to select crops accordingly, he said and added that atleast one hobli should be developed as a model.
On MGNREGA
Lad expressed his anguish at the extremely poor implementation of the MGNREGA scheme in the district. "Despite having ample opportunity to create more man-days, officials failed to act, and today the rural poor are not reaping the benefits of MGNREGA," he said.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
As per current targets, the district should have created 80,000 human days this year. However, only 49,000 have been generated so far.
He directed officials from agriculture, horticulture, forest, and sericulture departments to hold immediate joint meetings, conduct a serious review of man-day generation, and submit a report promptly.
The minister expressed frustration at the unsatisfactory answers from several officials. He showed displeasure towards replies from DDPI, horticulture, and sericulture officials, criticising them for their lack of preparedness and accountability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
12 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
16-year-olds might soon be able to vote in the UK. It could change politics and democracy
The UK government has announced that the voting age will be lowered to 16 at the next election as part of a wider effort to restore trust in and 'future-proof' democracy. Votes at 16 has grown from a niche concern to become a salient – if contentious – issue supported by most UK political parties and electoral reform groups. The Conservative party remains a holdout – but has never acknowledged the contradiction of its continued opposition to the universal lowering of the voting age while empowering the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to enact the measure during its time in government. This is a policy response to concerns about declining youth democratic engagement since the late 1990s. Since 1997, the UK general election turnout rate for those aged 65 years and over has consistently been at least 20 percentage points higher than for those aged 18-24. Some opponents argue that the Labour government is lowering the voting age to 16 for its own electoral interest, but we should remember this was a clearly stated election manifesto commitment. Votes at 16 was part of the package that delivered Labour to government in 2024 on a huge majority. That said, public opinion remains steadfastly opposed. The government will need to handle this tension carefully, ensuring that 16- and 17-years-olds are not treated as second-class members of the electorate as this debate pushes forward. For and against As when the voting age was universally lowered to 18 in 1969, the case for change has pivoted on perceptions of maturity and markers of adulthood. There was considerable political and public consensus in the 1960s that 18 was the appropriate age of majority and enfranchisement. This link has endured, and many people continue to think under 18s are too socially and politically immature to vote responsibly or regularly. Supporters of reform emphasise the need to align enfranchisement with other rights realised before or at age 16 – such as paying tax, medical consent, working, autonomy to make decisions about future education and work lives, and undertaking military (if not frontline) service. Opponents respond by noting the age of majority remains 18, and that the minimum age for many protective and social rights, such as marriage and leaving full-time education, has been pushed upwards to 18 in the past decade or so. But while 18 remains the legal marker of adulthood, transitions from youthhood to adulthood have become extended and complex. There is no single age point at which young people realise all the social and economic rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood. Biological maturation extends from late-stage childhood until early adulthood (mid-20s). Traditional markers of adulthood such as financial independence, owning a property, or getting married and having children are occurring later in life than in previous generations. It is more than 50 years since parliament last reflected and reviewed how society understands, and frames, issues of adulthood and citizenship linked to the ages of majority and enfranchisement. Lowering the voting age to 16 offers a timely opportunity to do so again. Extensive parliamentary debate lies ahead as this bill makes its way through to becoming law. MPs should take that time to discuss and build consensus around what British democracy should offer young people, and how enfranchisement should be conceptualised for future generations. Lowering the age Now that 16- and 17-year-olds are part of the electorate, we can hope that political parties will improve their responsiveness to the interests of young people. Unfortunately, where the voting age has already been lowered, we've not yet seen parties address their skewed decision-making, representation or electoral behaviour, which continues to favour older voters. The average age of elected representatives has remained around 50 years of age in all UK national and devolved parliaments, and higher in local government. Few young people join political parties or are active in their campaigning. There is also significant evidence that, regardless of whether the voting age has been lowered or not, young people are not appropriately supported to be politically and media literate to understand how and when to vote, and to make informed and independent voter choices. So, lowering the voting age should only be the first step in a more concerted effort to improve political literacy and democratic engagement as young people grow up. This should begin in primary, not secondary, school and continue through further and higher education. Elected representatives should hold regular school surgeries where they meet children and young people, and listen and respond to their issues and concerns. Young people need to learn to discuss political issues in school settings, and political parties should host election hustings in schools and colleges. Young people should also be involved in decision-making in their schools and communities. Lowering the voting age offers an opportunity to reinvigorate how we host elections to ensure young people enjoy voting for the first time – and encourage their future participation. Making electoral registration automatic, as the government has promised, will help. But joining the electoral roll is a significant civic moment in young people's lives. Schools should host electoral registration ceremonies where pupils are welcomed into the electorate by local elected representatives, and automatically given a voter authority certificate so they have an appropriate piece of voter ID. Political parties need to embrace this once-in-a-generation opportunity that voting age reform presents to secure the future health of British democracy.
India.com
12 minutes ago
- India.com
Bad news for Mukesh Ambani as loses Rs 660000000000 due to…, not US, but EU finds way to kill Russian oil
The European Union has imposed a ban on the import of Russian oil from third countries which means no EU nation can now import Russian-origin crude or refined products irrespective of where it is processed or shipped from. This move can impact India, which was exporting around $15 billion of refined petroleum products annually to European markets. With this new restriction, that entire revenue stream is now at risk. EU's Move Hits India Hard In recent weeks, former U.S. President Donald Trump had made statements of curbing trade in Russian oil, but they had little impact on countries like India and China. However, the EU's latest decision has given a serious blow to Mukesh Ambani. On Monday, after the EU's announcement, Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) shares declined over 3%, wiping out more than Rs 66,000 crore in market capitalisation. The new EU rule bans the import of Russian oil, even if it is refined in a third country like India. This directly affects companies like Reliance Industries, one of India's largest exporters of refined crude oil products to Europe. India's Oil Trade With Russia and Europe According to reports, India exported $19.2 billion worth of petroleum products to the EU in FY24. However, in FY25, this number dropped by 27.1% to $15 billion, after growing scrutiny over the origin of crude used. At the same time, India imported $50.3 billion of crude oil from Russia in FY25, so Russian oil now accounts for over 44% of India's total crude basket. Big Blow To Reliance Industries The impact can be seen on Reliance Industries, which has become the largest importer of Russian crude oil. In December 2024, RIL signed a 10-year deal with Russia's Rosneft to import around 500,000 barrels per day of Russian crude at around $13 billion annually. This move helped RIL to refine the cheaper Russian crude and export the high-margin products, especially diesel, to Europe. As of October 2024, Reliance was importing an average of 405,000 barrels per day from Russia which was over one-third of its total crude oil intake. With Russian crude priced $3–4 per barrel cheaper than Middle Eastern grades, RIL had been benefiting from healthy refining margins and strong demand in European markets. But the EU's ban has now threatens this business model. Reliance Industries Lost 66,000 Crore After the EU's decision, Reliance shares fell sharply. On the BSE, RIL stock closed at Rs 1,428.20, down 3.29% from the previous close. During the session, it hit a day's low of Rs 1,423.05. The stock had opened at Rs 1,474.95, slightly below its previous close of Rs 1,476.85. The decline resulted in a massive hit to Reliance's market capitalisation. On Friday, the company's market cap was at Rs 19,98,543.22 crore. By the end of Monday's trading session, it had fallen to Rs 19,32,707.74 crore which was a drop of Rs 65,835.48 crore in a single day.
India.com
12 minutes ago
- India.com
Fight Legally, Politically: Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah On Goa CMs Mahadayi Project Remark
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his ministers on Wednesday lashed out at the BJP and Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant over the latter's remark about the Mahadayi project. Notably, Goa CM Sawant told the state legislative assembly that Union Minister for Environment and Forests Bhupendra Yadav has assured that the Central government will not okay the Mahadayi project. Sawant also told the legislative assembly on Tuesday that the Goa government would file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the Karnataka government for carrying out activities aimed at diverting Mahadayi river water. The two states are locked in a decades-old dispute over the sharing of Mahadayi river water. Now, CM Siddaramaiah said that the state government will fight it legally and politically. "Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his ministers on Wednesday lashed out at the BJP and Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant. The Goa CM's arrogant remark on the Mahadayi project is an insult to the people of Karnataka. Why hasn't the Union Govt officially communicated any concerns? Is this how federalism works under BJP? Backdoor sabotage, silence, and betrayal?" said Siddaramaiah. The Karnataka CM asked whether Kannadigas are being punished for not surrendering to the BJP. "Mahadayi is not for luxury or waste, it is for the drinking water needs of North Karnataka. For decades, our people have waited for justice. But BJP's and Janata Dal (S) Karnataka leaders have no spine to speak up. Their silence today will be remembered tomorrow," he said. The Karnataka Chief Minister said that despite the 2018 tribunal verdict allocating 13.42 TMC of water to the state, the Central government in connivance with Goa's BJP government, is blocking the implementation of the rightful project. "This project will quench the thirst of over 40 lakh people in Belagavi, Dharwad, Gadag, Bagalkot and nearby regions. It is a lifeline, not a bargaining chip. We will fight legally, politically, and morally until Karnataka gets its rightful share," said the CM. Earlier on Wednesday, Karnataka Minister H K Patil termed the Goa CM's statement as shocking. "The official statement made by Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant in the Legislative Assembly—that Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav has informed him the Centre will, under no circumstances, approve the Mahadayi project—has come as a shock to Karnataka," he said. The Mahadayi river originates in the Bhimgad Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka and flows through Goa and Maharashtra before emptying into the Arabian Sea at Panaji.
