RSS says it has no say in Yogi's selection as UP CM

March 19, 2017

Coimbatore, Mar 19: Amid speculation that the Sangh pushed for Yogi Adityanath's candidature as UP CM, the RSS on Sunday said it was a political decision and it had no say in the selection of chief ministers in BJP-ruled states.

yogi-sunglasses

Replying to a specific question on choosing Adityanath, a swayamsevak, as Chief Minister, RSS Joint General Secretary Bhagaiah told reporters it was a political decision.

When pointed out that BJP has elected Trivendra Singh Rawat, a RSS pracharak, as Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, he said Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also an RSS man.

Bhagaiah said RSS was not pressurising in the selection of Chief Ministers.

Priest-turned politician Yogi Adityanath, the controversial mascot of hardline Hindutva, was on Saturday named as next Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in a move by the BJP that took many by surprise.

State BJP chief Keshav Prasad Maurya, who was himself in contention for the top job besides union minister Manoj Sinha, had announced Adityanath's election amid speculation that the RSS pushed for Yogi's candidature.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 15,2024

SCSBI.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 13: The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing complete details of Electoral Bonds, including unique alfa numeric numbers, furnished to the Election Commission for uploading on the website.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the SBI seeking its response on Monday after the court was informed that the issuing bank for the Electoral Bonds has not disclosed unique alfa numeric number of each bond.

"They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India. All details have to be provided by the SBI," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said as per the Constitution bench judgment of February 15, 2024, all details were to be disclosed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted since the SBI was a party to the judgment, notice may be issued to it.

The court said the counsel for SBI should have been here.

"If you see the judgment, we have specified that bond numbers have to be provided," the bench said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the main petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

On an application by the EC, the bench said the details of Electoral Bonds furnished by the poll panel before the top court should be scanned and returned to it for the purpose of uploading on the website.

The Election Commission through advocate Amit Sharma filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to release data on electoral bonds furnished to the top court in terms of previous orders of April 12, 2019 and November 2, 2023.

As per March 11, 2024 order, the Election Commission on Thursday uploaded the data on electoral bonds furnished to it by the SBI.

However, in an application, the poll panel said it had furnished to the Supreme Court a number of sealed envelopes, containing details on EBs encashed by the political parties, during the course of hearing in the matter.

It sought a direction for the return of those sealed envelopes to comply with the directions to upload it on the website as per order of March 11.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had told the SBI to furnish details of purchasers of Electoral Bonds and names of political parties redeemed those instruments by March 12 to the Election Commission, rejecting its plea for extension of time until June 30 for the purpose.

It had then directed the Election Commission to publish the information provided by the SBI on its website on March 15.

In its February 15, 2024 judgment, the SC had declared the Electoral Bonds scheme, introduced in 2018 for donation to political parties, as "unconstitutional" for being violative of the right to information.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 26,2024

telengana.jpg

Hyderabad: The K Chandrashekar Rao-led Bharat Rashtra Samithi faces big questions as shocking allegations of state police officers tapping the phones of then Opposition leaders in Telangana, including current Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, celebrities and businessmen come to the fore.

The surveillance, it is alleged, was also used to blackmail businessmen into contributing huge amounts to the BRS party fund.

The BRS is yet to respond to the allegations.

Three senior police officers have been arrested in this connection and a lookout notice issued against T Prabhakar Rao, former chief of the state intelligence bureau, who is reportedly in the US now.

Police have said two senior officers - Additional Superintendent of Police Bhujanga Rao and Additional Superintendent of Police Thirupathanna - have admitted to illegal surveillance and destruction of evidence.

According to reports, Ravi Paul, a technical consultant with the state intelligence bureau under the then BRS government, had allegedly helped import and set up phone-tapping equipment near the residence of Mr Reddy to listen in on his conversations.

The equipment, it is alleged, was imported from Israel using a software company as the front. No permission from the Centre - a must for such imports - was taken, it is learnt. With this setup, anything spoken within a range of 300 metres could be heard, reports say.

Ravi Paul, it is alleged, set up an office near Mr Reddy's residence and installed the device. Police are set to question him in this connection.

Lookout notices have also been issued for Sharvan Rao, who runs a Telugu TV channel I News, and Radha Kishan Rao, a police officer with the city task force.

The surveillance was not restricted to Opposition leaders. Top businessmen, including real estate dealers and jewellers, and celebrities were also under surveillance. In fact, the tapping of phone conversations led to the divorce of a celebrity couple, reports say.

To add to the BRS's troubles, Chief Minister Reddy has received a complaint from Sharan Chaudhary, a businessman and a BJP leader, alleging that senior police officers kidnapped him last year and forced him to sign off a plot of land to a relative of former minister and BRS leader Errabelli Dayakar Rao.

Mr Chaudhury has alleged that Radha Kishan Rao and senior police officer ACP Umamaheswara Rao kidnapped him on August 21 while he was on his way to office. He has alleged that he was illegally detained and forced to register his property in the name of Vijay, a close relative of the minister. He was also forced to pay ₹ 50 lakh before they let him go.

The businessman has said he had approached the High Court after the incident, but Uma Maheshwar Rao threatened to file false cases against him and forced him to withdraw the petition.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 21,2024

billionairs.jpg

New Delhi: India has now become more unequal in terms of wealth concentration than the British colonial period as income and wealth of the top 1% of the country’s population have hit historical highs, according to a paper released by World Inequality Lab.

By 2022-23, the top 1 per cent income share in India was 22.6 per cent and the top 1 per cent wealth share rose to 40.1 per cent, with India’s top 1 per cent income share among the very highest in the world, higher than even South Africa, Brazil and the US.

Co-authored by economists Nitin Kumar Bharti, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, and Anmol Somanchi, the paper stated that the “Billionaire Raj” headed by “India’s modern bourgeoisie” is now more unequal than the British Raj headed by the colonialist forces. 

The paper said there is evidence to suggest the Indian tax system might be “regressive when viewed from the lens of net wealth”. A restructuring of the tax code is needed, the paper said, adding that a levy of a “super tax” of 2 per cent on the net wealth of 167 wealthiest families would yield 0.5 per cent of national income in revenues and create space for investments.

“A restructuring of the tax code to account for both income and wealth, and broad-based public investments in health, education and nutrition are needed to enable the average Indian, and not just the elites, to meaningfully benefit from the ongoing wave of globalisation. Besides serving as a tool to fight inequality, a “super tax” of 2% on the net wealth of the 167 wealthiest families in 2022-23 would yield 0.5% of national income in revenues and create valuable fiscal space to facilitate such investments,” the paper said. 

The paper has analysed data based on the annual tax tabulations published by the Indian income tax authorities to extract the distribution of top income earners between 1922-2020.

The share of national income going to the top 10 per cent fell from 37 per cent in 1951 to 30 per cent by 1982 after which it began steadily rising. From the early 1990s onwards, the top 10 per cent share increased substantially over the next three decades, nearly touching 60 per cent in the most recent years, the paper said. This compares with the bottom 50 per cent getting only 15 per cent of India’s national income in 2022-23.

 The top 1 per cent earn on average Rs 5.3 million, 23 times the average Indian (Rs 0.23 million). Average incomes for the bottom 50 per cent and the middle 40 per cent stood at Rs 71,000 (0.3 times national average) and Rs 1,65,000 (0.7 times national average), respectively.
The richest, nearly 10,000 individuals (of 92 million Indian adults) earn on average Rs 480 million (2,069 times the average Indian). “To get a sense of just how skewed the distribution is, one would have to be at nearly the 90th percentile to earn the average income in India,” the paper said.

In 2022, just the top 0.1 per cent in India earned nearly 10 per cent of the national income, while the top 0.01 per cent earned 4.3 per cent share of the national income and top 0.001 per cent earned 2.1 per cent of the national income.

Enlisting the probable reasons for sharp rise in top 1 per cent income shares, the paper said public and private sector wage growth could have played a part till the late 1990s, adding that there are good reasons to believe capital incomes likely played a role in subsequent years. For the shares of the bottom 50 per cent and middle 40 per cent remaining depressed, the paper said, the primary reason has been the lack of quality broad-based education, focused on the masses and not just the elites.

“One reason to be concerned with such high levels of inequality is that extreme concentration of incomes and wealth is likely to facilitate disproportionate influence on society and government. This is even more so in contexts with weak democratic institutions. After largely being a role model among post-colonial nations in this regard, the integrity of various key institutions in India appears to have been compromised in recent years. This makes the possibility of India’s slide towards plutocracy even more real. If only for this reason, income and wealth inequality in India must be closely tracked and challenged,” it said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.