20 lakh more individuals to receive ration card benefits in Telangana
The decision is being seen both as an administrative milestone and a political move.
According to official sources, over two lakh new ration cards have been approved, which will benefit a total of five lakh individuals. Additionally, applications for expanding family units under existing cards have been cleared, covering around 15 lakh more people. The Civil Supplies department is said to have conducted a comprehensive field-level verification process before the final approvals.
This development pushes the total number of ration cards in the state from approximately 89.97 lakh to 92.28 lakh, with the number of beneficiaries rising from 2.81 crore to 3.01 crore — an increase of nearly 20 lakh individuals.
The timing and scale of the ration card clearances are politically significant. In the lead-up to the 2023 Assembly elections, the then-opposition Congress had strongly criticised the BRS government for allegedly stalling the issue of new food security cards.
The Congress government now appears to be eager to expedite the process of issuing new cards. The sanctioned cards are part of the party's Praja Palana initiative — a citizen-outreach programme launched soon after the Congress formed the government — which solicited public grievances and applications across a wide range of welfare schemes. The government also facilitated online applications through MeeSeva centres, a move aimed at streamlining access and reducing bureaucratic delays.
Beyond expanding coverage, the Congress government has also introduced qualitative improvements. Unlike the previous BRS regime, the current administration started supplying superfine variety rice through ration shops.
Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy is expected to officially announce the clearance of these applications during Telangana Formation Day celebrations on Monday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Amit Shah claims Nehru bid ‘bye bye to Assam' during 1962 war: What former PM said, in what context
Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday (July 29) accused former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of bidding goodbye to Assam during the 1962 war. Speaking in the Lok Sabha during the Operation Sindoor debate, Shah addressed Assam Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi, saying, 'Gogoiji has been saying a lot of things…do you know what he [Nehru] did to Assam? He waved bye bye to Assam on Akashvani…There is a recording of this.' This is not the first time the BJP has used Nehru's 1962 radio address to claim that Nehru had virtually surrendered Assam to China during the war. Last year, at an election rally in Lakhimpur, Shah had said, 'During the Chinese aggression of 1962, Nehru had said 'bye-bye' to Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. People of these states can never forget that.' In March 2024, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had written in The Indian Express, 'When Jawaharlal Nehru, as a Prime Minister abandoned Assam amidst the 1962 Indo-China war while claiming his heart went out to the people of Assam, Prime Minister Modi repeatedly called the region Ashtalakshmi and Bharat's growth engine.' What exactly did Nehru say in the radio address, and did he bid 'bye bye' to Assam? What did he say about the 1962 war in Parliament? What was his remark about not a blade of grass growing in Aksai Chin? We explain. The 1962 war lasted for barely a month, from October 20 to November 21. China invaded India from two sides, in the west around the Ladakh region and in the east in the Northeast Frontier Agency (today's Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Assam). On both fronts, its victories were swift and decisive. It managed to capture the strategically crucial Tawang (in the present Arunachal Pradesh), and advanced further. It was in this context that Nehru addressed the nation on November 19, 1962, in Hindi. The 'heart goes out to Assam' line goes thus, 'Is waqt kuch Assam ke upar, Assam ke darwaaze par, dushman hai, aur Assam khatre mein hai. Isliye khas taur se hamara dil jata hai hamare bhai air bahinon par, jo Assam mein rehtein hain, unki hamdardi mein, kyunki unkon taqleef uthani pad rahi hai…Hum unki poori madad karne ki koshish karenge aur karenge, lekin kitni bhi hum madad karein, hum unko taqleef se nahin bacha lenge is waqt. Haan, ek baat ka hum pakka irdada rakhtein hain…hum is baat ko aakhiri dum tak chaleyenge jab tak Assam aur sara Hindustan bilkul dushman se khaali na ho jaaye,' [Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 79]. The translation from the Selected Works, of a larger section of the speech, is, 'Huge Chinese armies have been marching in the northern part of the North East Frontier Agency and we have suffered reverses at Walong, on the Sela Ridge and today Bomdila — a small town in NEFA has also fallen. In the North also in Ladakh, in the Chushul area, the Chinese have been attacking fiercely, though they have been held. Now what has happened is very serious and very saddening to us and I can well understand what our friends in Assam must be feeling because all this is happening on their doorstep, one might say. I want to tell them that we feel very much for them and that we shall help them to the utmost of our ability. We may not be able always to succeed in what we are trying now because of various factors and of the overwhelming numbers of the Chinese forces, but I want to take a pledge to them, here and now, that we shall see this matter to the end and the end will have to be victory for India.' Thus, the speech asserts that the government would drive the enemy out of Assam, and when the PM spoke of his heart going out, he was acknowledging the troubles the people of Assam would have to suffer. Aditya Mukherjee, retired Professor of Contemporary History and Director, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Advanced Study, JNU, told The Indian Express, 'To read Nehru's 1962 AIR speech as 'bidding goodbye to Assam' does not stand scrutiny. While it is a stretch to read 'my heart goes out' as abandoning Assam, the rest of the speech makes it clear that Nehru was determined to fight for every inch of Indian land. The speech does not show any intention of surrendering, instead, it shows a resolve to keep fighting a difficult fight.' Nehru's comments on the war on other occasions Nehru spoke about the 1962 war multiple times in Parliament, giving information and answering the Opposition's questions even when the fighting was on. The speeches have the common theme of not surrendering to the enemy. For example, in Parliament on November 19, 1962, after giving details of the defeats suffered by the Indian Army, Nehru said, 'I should like to add that in spite of the reverses suffered by us, we are determined not to give in in any way and we shall fight the enemy, however long it may take to repel him and drive him out of our country.' Amit Shah Tuesday also said that Nehru gave 'non-serious' replies in Parliament, citing as example his comment about not a blade of grass growing in Aksai Chin. Nehru's Aksai Chin remark was made in August 1959, before the India China war, and he had clarified it in Parliament. Here's that exchange [(Jawaharlal Nehru: Selected Speeches, Volume 4]. Speaking about Chinese incursions into Ladakh, Nehru said in Lok Sabha, 'When we discovered in 1958, more than a year ago, that a road had been built across Yehcheng in the north-east corner of Ladakh, we were worried. We did not know where it was. Hon. Members asked why we did not know before. It is a relevant question, but the fact is that it is an uninhabitable area, 17.000 feet high. It had not been under any kind of administration. Nobody has been present there. It is a territory where not even a blade of grass grows. It adjoins Sinkiang.' Jaswant Singh later said, 'The Prime Minister stated a little while ago that this portion of Ladakh is absolutely desolate and unfertile and that not even a blade of grass grows there. Even then, China is attaching importance to the area and is building a road there. I would like to know, when China is attaching so much of importance to this desolate bit of land, why, when the territory is ours or is under dispute even, do we not attach any importance to it?' Nehru then replied, 'I talked only about the Yehcheng area, not about the whole of Ladakh… Presumably the Chinese attach importance to this area because of the fact that the route connects part of Chinese Turkestan with Gartok-Yehcheng.'
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nitish Kumar has a succession problem. Is his son the answer?
Written by Mrityunjay Sharma A puzzle has engaged everyone in Bihar over the last few months: Whether Nishant, Nitish Kumar's son, will join politics. Ever since his first public appearance in January, appealing to the people to vote for his father, political circles have been abuzz. Media speculation has only intensified, with significant political figures from both within and outside the JD(U) pitching for Nishant to take up the reins of the party. The latest to join this chorus is Upendra Kushwaha, Nitish's old ally and currently the leader of an NDA constituent, Rashtriya Lok Samta Party. In a recent comment, Kushwaha urged Nitish to hand over the party's leadership to Nishant, warning that any delay may cause irreparable damage. While Kushwaha's statement may carry political undertones, what he said appears to reflect the JD(U)'s only viable option. In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian politics, dynastic succession is no longer a surprise; it is a pattern. Nishant, an engineering graduate from BIT Mesra, has consistently maintained his disinterest in politics and expressed a personal inclination toward spirituality. What also makes Nishant's case particularly intriguing is that for years, Nitish has positioned himself as a leader different from Bihar's family-driven political model. Unlike his contemporaries — Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav — who openly groomed their sons as successors, Nitish Kumar never gave any such indication. Yet, as age catches up, the absence of a clear successor has begun to haunt the JD (U), making a once-unthinkable family transition appear increasingly inevitable. In Indian politics, where legacy often triumphs over merit, dynastic succession is more of a norm than an anomaly. From the Nehru-Gandhi family in the Congress to the Yadavs of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Thackerays of Maharashtra, the Badals of Punjab, and the DMK's dominance in Tamil Nadu, leadership succession through family ties is more of a survival strategy than a coincidence. The case of Nishant Kumar is merely another instance of this larger trend where smaller political parties, rather than fostering new leadership, pass on the reins within the family to ensure continuity. While some may argue that dynastic politics is more common in larger parties like the Congress, it is far more pronounced — and often necessary —for regional and smaller parties. Unlike national parties, which have the backing of a larger ideological structure and grassroots cadre, regional parties are often built around one strong leader. When such a leader ages or retires, the most obvious successor is someone from the family, seen as a natural inheritor of the party's legacy and vote base. While Nitish Kumar tried to groom several potential successors, all eventually fell out of favour. R C P Singh, once his closest aide, was sidelined due to his proximity to the BJP. Upendra Kushwaha, seen as an OBC leader from his kindred Koeri caste, clashed with Nitish and was ousted. Prashant Kishor, despite Nitish's fondness, was never fully embraced due to his independent streak. Some speculate Manish Verma, a new entrant from the bureaucracy, as a future leader, but the JD(U)'s history suggests that no one outside the Kumar surname will be able to match themselves up to Nitish. What the JD(U) is moving towards is a lesson learned from Indian politics: Parties without a clear family succession have struggled to survive. While Mulayam Singh Yadav's SP and Lalu Prasad's RJD continue to thrive after handing over power to their sons, Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has struggled to pass on the baton to her nephew, Akash Anand in a bid to salvage her legacy. The late Ram Vilas Paswan's LJP offers another example. The original party split, and most of the party leaders went with Late Ram Vilas's brother, Pashupati Nath Paras, following a feud. However, the electorate still associates the LJP with Chirag Paswan, who has now reclaimed the party's legacy under a new political entity. Similarly, the BJD in Odisha faces uncertainty post-Naveen Patnaik era, with no clear family succession line. The trend is visible beyond the Hindi heartland as well. While DMK has been holding power in Tamil Nadu following a clear dynastic succession, the AIADMK has suffered in the absence of clear leadership post-Jayalalithaa. Unlike the BJP and Left parties, which have largely distanced themselves from dynastic politics and promoted second-rung leadership, regional and smaller parties often do not have the luxury of a strong ideological foundation. Their entire political existence is tied to the charisma of one leader. When that leader fades, keeping power within the family is often seen as the easiest way to ensure continuity. But this also raises critical concerns. Does dynastic succession hinder democratic party structures? Does it prevent the rise of talented grassroots leaders who are not part of the family? In many cases, the answer is yes. Regional parties rarely develop a robust second line of leadership, making it almost inevitable that leadership is passed within the family. Unlike the RJD or the SP, which have strong caste-based vote banks, the JD(U)'s voter base is fragmented, spread across voting blocs such as those of the EBCs and women voters. Nitish Kumar himself has relied on his good governance image and coalition politics rather than caste-based mobilisation. If Nishant Kumar does step into politics, he will have his task cut out. His success will hinge on whether he can craft an independent political identity or merely serve as a symbolic extension of his father's legacy. Complicating matters further, Nishant will face stiff competition from other political scions like Tejashwi Yadav and Chirag Paswan — both of whom have not only inherited political capital but also years of head-start in navigating Bihar's complex political terrain. While no confirmation has come yet, the speculation around Nishant Kumar suggests that even a party like the JD(U), which prided itself on governance and ideology, is finding it difficult to break free from dynastic patterns. This reflects a broader crisis in Indian politics, where family remains the strongest political capital, and where survival, more than ideology or governance, dictates leadership transitions. As long as political parties continue to be personal enterprises rather than institutional entities, the cycle of family-driven leadership will continue, no matter how much the electorate criticises it. The writer is a BJP Leader and author of Broken Promises: Caste, Crime and Politics in Bihar
Hans India
9 minutes ago
- Hans India
Nehru might be your grandfather, but he was first PM; I have right to question: Nishikant Dubey slams Gandhis
New Delhi: BJP Lok Sabha MP Nishikant Dubey on Tuesday launched a sharp attack on Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi, stating that they act as though they hold exclusive rights over former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Speaking during the Operation Sindoor debate in the Lok Sabha, Dubey asserted that as India's first Prime Minister, Nehru's decisions are open to public scrutiny. "I would like to thank the Indian armed forces for giving a fitting reply to Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack. I offer my homage to those unarmed people who were killed in the name of religion," Dubey said while opening his address. Criticising Priyanka Gandhi's remarks urging people to forget the past, Dubey said, "The person, society or the community that forgets its past, only gets destroyed. We should learn from the past and live in the present. The two things that are being talked about in Parliament are Kashmir and China." He alleged that Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi behave as though they have a "stamp" of Jawaharlal Nehru. "Nehru might be your grandfather, but he was the first Prime Minister of India, and I have the right to question his deeds. You do not have a guarantee or USP for him. I have the right to raise questions about the punishment I am enduring," he added. Dubey cited Nehru's book, 'Glimpses of World History', in which Mahmud Ghazni was referred to as a "warrior" and claimed that such thinking reflects a mindset that the Congress party continues to carry. Touching on the Partition, Dubey blamed Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali, but added that dynasty politics in the Congress had caused lasting harm. He claimed that when Nehru appointed his sister Vijay Laxmi Pandit as ambassador to Moscow, it deeply upset Liaquat Ali, prompting him to move to Pakistan after Partition. "The same dynasty politics has brought the Congress party and the country to this stage," he said. Dubey also elaborated on Kashmir's accession to India. "In 1942, when India launched the 'Bharat Chhodo Andolan', in Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah was running the 'Raja Chhodo Andolan'. Jinnah supported the King instead of Sheikh Abdullah, and the King thought Nehru did not support him. So, he took a few months to decide whether to join India," he said. He questioned the special status granted to Kashmir under Article 370. "The King signed the same Instrument of Accession as the other 600 princely states. When the same was implemented in Manipur, Kutch, and Uttar Pradesh, then why was Article 370 implemented in Kashmir?" Dubey said. "If the Nehru-Gandhi family is responsible for the situation in Kashmir today, then we will hold them responsible. Why do Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have a problem with this?" he said. Dubey also raised a controversial claim regarding a CIA report, stating that at least 40 per cent of Congress MPs were "funded" by the Soviet Union and acted as "agents" of Russia. He further blamed Nehru for the Chinese occupation of Tibet, which he said had led to China's growing aggression along India's borders. Referring to Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, Dubey claimed that the 1971 war hero was denied his pension from 1972 until 2007. "When Abdul Kalam became the President and intervened, he finally got the pension for Gen Mankeshaw in 2008," Dubey said. "You don't respect the Army Chief, the 1971 war hero, and then claim you respect the armed forces," he added.
