Skip to content
Telangana Social

Sarcasm as a Social Service. The SaaS Telangana didn’t ask for but needs.

Talk to us

Today's talking point

SIR’s voter-roll deletion war

Analysis

Sircilla’s ₹60 crore question awaits a ledger

KTR says weavers are still owed ₹60 crore. Earlier records show large payments, but no public document in the material reviewed confirms the current balance.

By Ctrl Alt DebateEmploymentRajanna Sircilla
WhatsApp
An empty ledger with blank owed-and-paid columns sits on a government office desk while payment files, receipts and an unused stamp surround it; weavers wait beside fabric bundles outside a Sircilla records room.

The current, category-wise statement remains unavailable.

Illustration generated from an editorial brief

Sircilla’s weavers are still waiting for something more useful than another political assurance: a ledger.

BRS working president K. T. Rama Rao has alleged that ₹60 crore remains unpaid out of ₹300 crore owed to the town’s weavers, and has sought a payment schedule from the Congress government in Telangana. Reports of his open letter say the government claims all old dues were cleared. The ₹60 crore figure, however, is currently documented only as KTR’s allegation, not as an independently verified government balance.

There is no shortage of evidence that the problem was real. In April 2024, the government released ₹50 crore against ₹351 crore in pending Bathukamma-saree payments. A later report recorded ₹222.39 crore released for Bathukamma dues, ₹157.46 crore for other government orders and ₹6.32 crore in yarn subsidy. Sircilla also received fresh orders, including a women’s self-help-group saree programme.

What is missing is the boring document that would settle the argument: a current, category-wise statement showing who is owed what, under which order, and what has been paid. The Congress government has not yet put that calculation on the table. Until it does, ₹60 crore remains a political claim—and the ledger remains the more useful speech.

More stories

Editorial standards