'Many Kalawatis whom Rahulji has not visited'
Pandharkawda- (Maharashtra): Exactly a week after Congress MP Rahul Gandhi visited her humble hut and later mentioned her case in parliament during the trust motion debate, Kalawati Bandurkar led a farmers' sit in agitation here Friday demanding the promised loan disbursal and relief to tide over the month-long dry spell.
The mother of nine children, who has been single-handedly tilling her un-irrigated contract-farmland ever since her debt-ridden husband Parshuram ended his life three years ago, submitted a memorandum of farmers' demands to sub divisional officer Sarang Kondulkar along with her personal one in the presence of about 2,000 farmers and Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS) president Kishor Tiwari.
While VJAS has said in its memorandum that many farmers have not yet received the loan notwithstanding government claims, Kalawati, who tills the farm of an acquaintance on contract basis, has sought a piece of land, a house under the Indira Aawas Yojana and assistance under the Rajiv Gandhi Niradhar Yojana (scheme for destitute) so as to mitigate her hardship.
Thanking the young Congress MP for visiting her rented thatched house sans power in village Jalka in Yavatmal district and for his kind words, Kalawati said in her memorandum that a stream of journalists and sympathizers came calling since the VVIP visit. It made her famous overnight but has not yet brought two square meals for her and her family or money for farming.
"No one from the administration or the Congress came to meet me after Rahulji's visit", Kalawati, who has become a new symbol of India's 'suicide capital', told IANS.
"Rahulji was touched to the core to see my plight and it showed; he also praised me for my courage but it is increasingly difficult to pull on, tilling someone else's land on rent, spending huge sums and ending up with meagre crop and meagre income", Kalawati said just before submitting the two memoranda.
In her impressive extempore speech at the sit-in rally, Kalawati said remunerative price for cotton, loan waiver and fresh credit for all farmers and a comprehensive relief scheme for all widows of farmers who committed suicide are a must and that there should be no dithering from that.
"I might have become a household name in the country after Rahulji's visit to my home but I don't want anything for myself alone for that reason", the widow said, adding: "There are many Kalawatis whom Rahulji has not visited and, god forbid, there could be many more of them tomorrow if the agrarian crisis is not addressed comprehensively," the untutored widow said to a thunderous applause from a surprised audience.
On Dec 12, 2005, Kalawati's husband sold cotton he harvested that rabi season, repaid personal loans from the proceeds, freed his wife's 'mangalsutra' (golden necklace married Hindu women wear as a sign of 'blessed' marital status) and came home with a balance of Rs.4,000 plus - his season's income.
Tying the mangalsutra around Kalawati's neck, Parshuram told her he would soon be back from a visit to the farm, picked up a can of pesticide he had hid from her and went out. He never returned.
"Only two of our seven daughters were married then and we had decided to marry off the next two that season… we had also received proposals for them but we had no money even for 'kunku' (engagement ceremony)," Kalawati recalled.
The Bandurkars had no money for the education of the remaining five daughters and two sons either, or for cultivating the next season's crop. The agrarian crisis that year was acute. Bank loan was ruled out for them as they did not own the land. Going to a private moneylender too would be futile as they had nothing to mortgage.
In the all-enveloping darkness, suicide was the only way out that Parshuram could see!
Kishor Tiwari and some of the farm activists' friends, including a few journalists, have been supporting Kalawati since the grim tragedy with money, two buffaloes and a few goats. On their part, Kalawati and her children - a badly shattered Kalawati too was on the verge of suicide initially but collected herself soon enough - dug their heels and have been toiling hard.
Caught in the labyrinth of rules and laws, the government could not help Kalawati much, she being a persona non-grata - she doesn't own agricultural land or house and doesn't belong to any of the categories like Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe that are entitled for benefit under various schemes for weaker sections such as Antyoday Yojana.
"The government extended to her an assistance of Rs.10,000 immediately after her husband's death; gave her Rs.10,000 again in August 2006 and has been paying her a pension of Rs.625 per month," district collector Sanjay Deshmukh told IANS.
As for providing her a house under the Indira Aawas Yojana, Deshmukh said, the Gram Sabha (village council) makes the selection of eligible beneficiaries and also prepares a priority list based on individual poverty level.
"There will be trouble if I tinker with the list; it would amount to breach of the rule and injustice to a more deserving person", he said. "There are many Kalawatis and my heart goes out to all of them, but I have to follow the rules," he added.
Refuting the VJAS claim that loan has not been disbursed, the district collector said, loans worth Rs.720 million have already been disbursed in the district out of a credit plan of Rs.5.52 billion.
"It is true that district cooperative banks do not have enough money for loan disbursal but I requested the nationalised banks to extend loan against individual no-objection certificates from the DCCs and they agreed," Deshmukh said, pointing out that almost Rs.300 million of the total loan disbursals so far has come from nationalised banks.
Malayala Manorama Indian Newspaper of Malayalam Language from eight places in Kerela
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
'N-deal will leave India at mercy of suppliers'
The Hindu - Indian Newspapers in English Language from eight editions.
'N-deal will leave India at mercy of suppliers'
Kolkata (PTI): A group of Indian scientists have come out against the Indo-US civil nuclear deal saying it will leave the country at the "mercy of uranium-rich countries and big corporate houses" for supply and consequently vulnerable to a rise in price of the radioactive metal.
"The deal will have no contribution as a solution to the energy crisis. It will only raise the cost of power and place India at the mercy of uranium-rich nations," Subhendu Mitra, general secretary of Forum of Scientists, Engineers and Technologists on Thursday said.
Mitra said the cost of power produced by a modern nuclear plant running on imported uranium is Rs 5.5 per unit as compared to the current rate of Rs 4 per unit offered by indigenous nuclear plants at present even as an unit of Indian thermal power comes at a cost of Rs 2.5.
"Once the costly nuclear plants find their way to the country, it will become compulsively dependent on foreign fuel as suppliers of the Uranium-238 isotope play havoc with its price ala the crude petroleum suppliers," he said.
Implementation of the deal and addition of 40,000 MW plants will only raise the percentage of nuclear power produced in the country to a meagre eight per cent, Mitra said, which is "practically no improvement at all."
The forum accused the UPA government of not taking into account scientists and technologists' opinions on the matter. "That scientists' voices were ignored strengthens the suspicion that it is really not in the interest of self-reliance in science and technology," Mitra said.
'N-deal will leave India at mercy of suppliers'
Kolkata (PTI): A group of Indian scientists have come out against the Indo-US civil nuclear deal saying it will leave the country at the "mercy of uranium-rich countries and big corporate houses" for supply and consequently vulnerable to a rise in price of the radioactive metal.
"The deal will have no contribution as a solution to the energy crisis. It will only raise the cost of power and place India at the mercy of uranium-rich nations," Subhendu Mitra, general secretary of Forum of Scientists, Engineers and Technologists on Thursday said.
Mitra said the cost of power produced by a modern nuclear plant running on imported uranium is Rs 5.5 per unit as compared to the current rate of Rs 4 per unit offered by indigenous nuclear plants at present even as an unit of Indian thermal power comes at a cost of Rs 2.5.
"Once the costly nuclear plants find their way to the country, it will become compulsively dependent on foreign fuel as suppliers of the Uranium-238 isotope play havoc with its price ala the crude petroleum suppliers," he said.
Implementation of the deal and addition of 40,000 MW plants will only raise the percentage of nuclear power produced in the country to a meagre eight per cent, Mitra said, which is "practically no improvement at all."
The forum accused the UPA government of not taking into account scientists and technologists' opinions on the matter. "That scientists' voices were ignored strengthens the suspicion that it is really not in the interest of self-reliance in science and technology," Mitra said.
India to brief nations on nuclear deal Friday
Deccan Herald - Indian Newspapers in English Language from Bangalore, Karnataka
India to brief nations on nuclear deal Friday
VIENNA, Reuters:
If IAEA governors approve the safeguards draft, India and the United States must win clearance from a 45-nation group that controls sensitive nuclear trade, then ratification by the U.S. Congress...
India will brief U.N. nuclear watchdog governors on Friday on its plan for inspections of atomic facilities, a precondition for launching a U.S.-Indian nuclear trade accord, diplomats said on Wednesday.
The draft text was negotiated with International Atomic Energy Agency experts and will be considered for approval by the IAEA's 35-nation governing board at a special session on Aug. 1.
The plan would subject India's 14 declared civilian atomic reactors to inspections to pave the way for imports of "trigger list" nuclear items for peaceful use although India has shunned the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and tested atom bombs.
If IAEA governors approve the safeguards draft, India and the United States must win clearance from a 45-nation group that controls sensitive nuclear trade, then ratification by the U.S. Congress for the controversial nuclear deal to take force.
India, cranking up a charm offensive to defuse possible resistance over concerns its landmark pact with Washington will fray the NPT, will include Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) states in Friday's briefing, diplomats close to the issue said.
The diplomats said India needed to clarify language in the safeguards draft hinting inspections were not necessarily permanent, and possibly blurring what are supposed to be strict divisions between civilian and military nuclear sectors.
They cited a "corrective measures" clause in the preamble hinting India could halt inspections if nuclear fuel imports were cut off, for example in protest at another nuclear test.
The lack of mention in the plan's annexe of facilities to be covered by inspections has also raised eyebrows, they said.
"This is not a 100 percent standard safeguards document. We are in unprecedented territory. There are quite a lot of ambiguities we need to resolve," said a European diplomat, who like others asked for anonymity due to political sensitivities.
"India's answers will decide whether there is smooth sailing at the board meeting or not," the diplomat said.
India and the United States are counting on approval since IAEA safeguards lawyers vetted the draft and the majority of Indian nuclear facilities would be opened to U.N. monitoring, ushering India towards the non-proliferation mainstream.
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei supports the initiative.
The unconditional waiver India wants from the NSG may be harder to pull off due to fears of upsetting non-proliferation principles by doing nuclear trade with a non-NPT country that also has shunned the global test ban treaty.
The NSG, which decides policy by consensus only, is likely to need two meetings from early September to resolve the matter.
Washington says the deal would forge a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy, help India meet soaring energy demand and open a nuclear market worth billions of dollars to exporters worldwide.
India to brief nations on nuclear deal Friday
VIENNA, Reuters:
If IAEA governors approve the safeguards draft, India and the United States must win clearance from a 45-nation group that controls sensitive nuclear trade, then ratification by the U.S. Congress...
India will brief U.N. nuclear watchdog governors on Friday on its plan for inspections of atomic facilities, a precondition for launching a U.S.-Indian nuclear trade accord, diplomats said on Wednesday.
The draft text was negotiated with International Atomic Energy Agency experts and will be considered for approval by the IAEA's 35-nation governing board at a special session on Aug. 1.
The plan would subject India's 14 declared civilian atomic reactors to inspections to pave the way for imports of "trigger list" nuclear items for peaceful use although India has shunned the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and tested atom bombs.
If IAEA governors approve the safeguards draft, India and the United States must win clearance from a 45-nation group that controls sensitive nuclear trade, then ratification by the U.S. Congress for the controversial nuclear deal to take force.
India, cranking up a charm offensive to defuse possible resistance over concerns its landmark pact with Washington will fray the NPT, will include Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) states in Friday's briefing, diplomats close to the issue said.
The diplomats said India needed to clarify language in the safeguards draft hinting inspections were not necessarily permanent, and possibly blurring what are supposed to be strict divisions between civilian and military nuclear sectors.
They cited a "corrective measures" clause in the preamble hinting India could halt inspections if nuclear fuel imports were cut off, for example in protest at another nuclear test.
The lack of mention in the plan's annexe of facilities to be covered by inspections has also raised eyebrows, they said.
"This is not a 100 percent standard safeguards document. We are in unprecedented territory. There are quite a lot of ambiguities we need to resolve," said a European diplomat, who like others asked for anonymity due to political sensitivities.
"India's answers will decide whether there is smooth sailing at the board meeting or not," the diplomat said.
India and the United States are counting on approval since IAEA safeguards lawyers vetted the draft and the majority of Indian nuclear facilities would be opened to U.N. monitoring, ushering India towards the non-proliferation mainstream.
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei supports the initiative.
The unconditional waiver India wants from the NSG may be harder to pull off due to fears of upsetting non-proliferation principles by doing nuclear trade with a non-NPT country that also has shunned the global test ban treaty.
The NSG, which decides policy by consensus only, is likely to need two meetings from early September to resolve the matter.
Washington says the deal would forge a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy, help India meet soaring energy demand and open a nuclear market worth billions of dollars to exporters worldwide.
UPA does not need any certificates of patriotism: Sonia to Left - Yahoo! India News
UPA does not need any certificates of patriotism: Sonia to Left - Yahoo! India News
Search:
UPA does not need any certificates of patriotism: Sonia to Left
Thu, Jul 17 08:44 PM
Nellore (AP), July 17 (PTI) Congress President Sonia Gandhi today bluntly told the Left parties that the UPA government did not need any certificates of patriotism from any party. In a strong rebuttal of the Left parties criticism on the Indo-US nuclear deal, Congress President Sonia Gandhi today said there was no no question of compromising on the country's security interest, nuclear programme and foreign policy.
Apparently referring to the Left parties' allegation that the government was going against the country's interests, Gandhi said without naming any party that "We do not not need any certificate from anybody else, from any party on our interests or our patriotism." Strongly backing the prime minister, she said the country needs access to latest nuclear technology and fuel from other countries and asked how they could be faulted for trying to provide this to people.
".
Yet we are being accused of going against the interest of our country.
Let me state before you, before the whole country categorically. There is no no question of compromising on our security interest, on our nuclear programme and our independent foreign policy," Gandhi said addressing a public meeting here.
In the Congress Working Committee (CWC) last week, she regretted the break up in ties with the Left parties but today she appeared more direct in replying to their criticism on the deal. The UPA chairperson said through India there was need for access to the latest nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.
"And this is what we want to do for our people. And how can we be faulted for striving to provide all this for our people.
Yet, we are being accused of going against the interest of our country," she said. PTI.
Search:
UPA does not need any certificates of patriotism: Sonia to Left
Thu, Jul 17 08:44 PM
Nellore (AP), July 17 (PTI) Congress President Sonia Gandhi today bluntly told the Left parties that the UPA government did not need any certificates of patriotism from any party. In a strong rebuttal of the Left parties criticism on the Indo-US nuclear deal, Congress President Sonia Gandhi today said there was no no question of compromising on the country's security interest, nuclear programme and foreign policy.
Apparently referring to the Left parties' allegation that the government was going against the country's interests, Gandhi said without naming any party that "We do not not need any certificate from anybody else, from any party on our interests or our patriotism." Strongly backing the prime minister, she said the country needs access to latest nuclear technology and fuel from other countries and asked how they could be faulted for trying to provide this to people.
".
Yet we are being accused of going against the interest of our country.
Let me state before you, before the whole country categorically. There is no no question of compromising on our security interest, on our nuclear programme and our independent foreign policy," Gandhi said addressing a public meeting here.
In the Congress Working Committee (CWC) last week, she regretted the break up in ties with the Left parties but today she appeared more direct in replying to their criticism on the deal. The UPA chairperson said through India there was need for access to the latest nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.
"And this is what we want to do for our people. And how can we be faulted for striving to provide all this for our people.
Yet, we are being accused of going against the interest of our country," she said. PTI.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
IndianExpress.com :: Whose moment is this?
IndianExpress.com :: Whose moment is this?
COLUMN
Whose moment is this?
Seema Chishti
Posted online: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 2241 hrs Print Email
A rough guide to the watersheds in Indian politics
Seema Chishti
Related Stories
Call from MeccaNo heart in heartlandIn defence of politicsHow not to fund a legislator
The contours of the immediate crisis (or hectic political parleying) should become clear whenever the “trust vote” takes place — or at least somewhat. Explanations would be found for party lines drawn and redrawn, ever since the Samajwadi Party decided to save a secular (non-BJP) government and the Left parties decided to take it on. However, in all this fluidity, while the outcome remains unclear and all sorts of possibilities still exist — exactly as Shah Rukh Khan’s character had said in Om Shanti Om, “picture abhi baaqi hai” — it is clear that we are at critical political crossroads, as in 1977, 1989, 1991, 1996, 1999 and 2004. Each of these times saw a momentous shift which went on to colour perceptions, the polity, campaigns, slogans and the way our (the voter’s) vote was interpreted by politicians who had the ability to do so.
In 1977, what was once thought of as the most unlikely combination of parties opposed to the Congress came together to call themselves the Janata Party. They merged themselves into one single entity, rather than trying to draw up a common programme, to fight what they thought was the biggest enemy — the Congress, under attack for imposing the Emergency — as never before in free India.
Twelve years later, 1989 again dramatically, but in a slightly more evolved way (as there was no insistence on forming “one” party), saw a former Congress defence minister and chief minister of Uttar Pradesh take on his parent party, trounce it, and with about 150 seats, get the support of both a resurgent Hindu nationalist BJP and a Left, keen on playing a larger role on the national stage. However, after his dramatic resignation in 1990, one saw the Congress, also agreeable to providing “outside support”, enter the fray as a player. The Congress entered the picture as a big party content to allow other formations to rule, by supporting them from the outside. This was a big shift for the centrist party, which then scoffed at coalitions — a change not often recorded or acknowledged adequately. Analysts typically date Congress’s coalitional era only from the time of the Panchmarhi meeting when they formally spoke of the new reality of India.
In 1991, though, Chandra Shekhar’s government was brought down on the grounds that there was surveillance outside the house of the Congress party president, Rajiv Gandhi. However, an election in the same year, and Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in the midst of it, saw P.V. Narasimha Rao take charge as prime minister. This was clearly the phase when leaders representing the backward castes in the two states sending the maximum numbers to the Lok Sabha were elbowing out the Congress from there — its disappearance was near-sudden — and the phase, called “fragmented” at that time, was actually the consolidation of a different kind of politics. The announcement that the Mandal Report was being implemented had been opposed by all three major formations (the Congress, the BJP, even the Left), but it was precisely this which they opposed that shaped them, their policies and the politics of the time. The idea of the Third Front, a new way, appeared to take shape.
In 1992, the destruction of the Babri Masjid, with a Congress government in power in Delhi and the BJP in power in Lucknow, also seemed to put the brakes on the BJP’s mobilisation on the basis of Hindu nationalism, as well as breaking the “trust” of the Muslim vote share in the Congress in UP at least. Mulayam Singh Yadav emerged as its new claimant, not wholly, but at least in substantial terms.
In 1998, came the other big shift in politics, with the BJP emerging as a successful coalition manager, and the formation of the National Democratic Alliance. It was a watershed as there was general acceptability of the BJP as an efficient coalition leader, well-versed in the art of political management and give and take. The fact that it was not in power or did not carry the baggage of the “old and big ruling party” — which the Congress did — helped it here, and it was easy for it to accede to requests and yield territory. The early ’90s phase of shunning the BJP seemed over, at least for smaller regional parties. But this phase saw the emergence of a degree of cooperation between the Congress and the Left on the national political scene: when the NDA continued with business as usual after the Gujarat riots in 2002, “secularism” as a political war cry again became a rallying point.
Eventually, in 2004, the United Progressive Alliance came into being, and it appeared there were now two coalitions that were possible, a Centre-Right one and a Centre-Left one. This too was a turning point in India’s political scene.
The Indo-US nuclear deal — being a very important component of India’s position in the new world, in deciding what kind of India would rise to engage with the rest of the world and its neighbourhood — is a subject that should have invoked the kind of debate and passion that it did, on both sides. But with the “deal” ending up as the breaking point in ties between two big and serious formations, there are implications which go beyond what can be fathomed immediately, possibly by either observers or the players themselves. If the possibility of the Left ending up voting with the BJP to pull down a government is something surprising to many, then so is the fact of the BJP taking such a contrarian position against its own past policies when in power (which favoured a close and strategic tie-up with the United States). The Congress has rustled up a Deal rath and a slogan quickly — Atomic Deal hone do, deshwaasiyon ko chain ki neend sone do — referring to the power cuts that are supposed to be over with nuclear power coming in. But what other parties will say after the “trust vote” or the next elections is anything but clear. What is clear is that July 2008 has been a watershed.
seema.chishti@expressindia.com
COLUMN
Whose moment is this?
Seema Chishti
Posted online: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 2241 hrs Print Email
A rough guide to the watersheds in Indian politics
Seema Chishti
Related Stories
Call from MeccaNo heart in heartlandIn defence of politicsHow not to fund a legislator
The contours of the immediate crisis (or hectic political parleying) should become clear whenever the “trust vote” takes place — or at least somewhat. Explanations would be found for party lines drawn and redrawn, ever since the Samajwadi Party decided to save a secular (non-BJP) government and the Left parties decided to take it on. However, in all this fluidity, while the outcome remains unclear and all sorts of possibilities still exist — exactly as Shah Rukh Khan’s character had said in Om Shanti Om, “picture abhi baaqi hai” — it is clear that we are at critical political crossroads, as in 1977, 1989, 1991, 1996, 1999 and 2004. Each of these times saw a momentous shift which went on to colour perceptions, the polity, campaigns, slogans and the way our (the voter’s) vote was interpreted by politicians who had the ability to do so.
In 1977, what was once thought of as the most unlikely combination of parties opposed to the Congress came together to call themselves the Janata Party. They merged themselves into one single entity, rather than trying to draw up a common programme, to fight what they thought was the biggest enemy — the Congress, under attack for imposing the Emergency — as never before in free India.
Twelve years later, 1989 again dramatically, but in a slightly more evolved way (as there was no insistence on forming “one” party), saw a former Congress defence minister and chief minister of Uttar Pradesh take on his parent party, trounce it, and with about 150 seats, get the support of both a resurgent Hindu nationalist BJP and a Left, keen on playing a larger role on the national stage. However, after his dramatic resignation in 1990, one saw the Congress, also agreeable to providing “outside support”, enter the fray as a player. The Congress entered the picture as a big party content to allow other formations to rule, by supporting them from the outside. This was a big shift for the centrist party, which then scoffed at coalitions — a change not often recorded or acknowledged adequately. Analysts typically date Congress’s coalitional era only from the time of the Panchmarhi meeting when they formally spoke of the new reality of India.
In 1991, though, Chandra Shekhar’s government was brought down on the grounds that there was surveillance outside the house of the Congress party president, Rajiv Gandhi. However, an election in the same year, and Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in the midst of it, saw P.V. Narasimha Rao take charge as prime minister. This was clearly the phase when leaders representing the backward castes in the two states sending the maximum numbers to the Lok Sabha were elbowing out the Congress from there — its disappearance was near-sudden — and the phase, called “fragmented” at that time, was actually the consolidation of a different kind of politics. The announcement that the Mandal Report was being implemented had been opposed by all three major formations (the Congress, the BJP, even the Left), but it was precisely this which they opposed that shaped them, their policies and the politics of the time. The idea of the Third Front, a new way, appeared to take shape.
In 1992, the destruction of the Babri Masjid, with a Congress government in power in Delhi and the BJP in power in Lucknow, also seemed to put the brakes on the BJP’s mobilisation on the basis of Hindu nationalism, as well as breaking the “trust” of the Muslim vote share in the Congress in UP at least. Mulayam Singh Yadav emerged as its new claimant, not wholly, but at least in substantial terms.
In 1998, came the other big shift in politics, with the BJP emerging as a successful coalition manager, and the formation of the National Democratic Alliance. It was a watershed as there was general acceptability of the BJP as an efficient coalition leader, well-versed in the art of political management and give and take. The fact that it was not in power or did not carry the baggage of the “old and big ruling party” — which the Congress did — helped it here, and it was easy for it to accede to requests and yield territory. The early ’90s phase of shunning the BJP seemed over, at least for smaller regional parties. But this phase saw the emergence of a degree of cooperation between the Congress and the Left on the national political scene: when the NDA continued with business as usual after the Gujarat riots in 2002, “secularism” as a political war cry again became a rallying point.
Eventually, in 2004, the United Progressive Alliance came into being, and it appeared there were now two coalitions that were possible, a Centre-Right one and a Centre-Left one. This too was a turning point in India’s political scene.
The Indo-US nuclear deal — being a very important component of India’s position in the new world, in deciding what kind of India would rise to engage with the rest of the world and its neighbourhood — is a subject that should have invoked the kind of debate and passion that it did, on both sides. But with the “deal” ending up as the breaking point in ties between two big and serious formations, there are implications which go beyond what can be fathomed immediately, possibly by either observers or the players themselves. If the possibility of the Left ending up voting with the BJP to pull down a government is something surprising to many, then so is the fact of the BJP taking such a contrarian position against its own past policies when in power (which favoured a close and strategic tie-up with the United States). The Congress has rustled up a Deal rath and a slogan quickly — Atomic Deal hone do, deshwaasiyon ko chain ki neend sone do — referring to the power cuts that are supposed to be over with nuclear power coming in. But what other parties will say after the “trust vote” or the next elections is anything but clear. What is clear is that July 2008 has been a watershed.
seema.chishti@expressindia.com
IndianExpress.com :: ‘The party must find an answer why we are voting with the BJP’
IndianExpress.com :: ‘The party must find an answer why we are voting with the BJP’
Front Page
‘The party must find an answer why we are voting with the BJP’
Ravik Bhattacharya
Posted online: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 0210 hrs Print Email
KOLKATA, JULY 15: CPM General Secretary Prakash Karat may draw precedents from pre-Babri Masjid political history to justify voting with the BJP. But on the ground in West Bengal, where his party matters more than anywhere else, there is growing disquiet — and it’s getting increasingly vocal.
Related Stories
Karat justifies voting with BJP: Cong did it too to pull down 3 govtsSomnath won’t play ball, Karat leaves it to ‘Comrade’The importance of being Jyoti BasuSpurned by Mulayam, Karat walks into his enemy Maya camp
Ad Links
Online Voter Registration India Book Pakistan Television
Of the 235 Left Front MLAs in the West Bengal Assembly, 34 are Muslim, 24 of them are from the CPM. And although each one of them will only watch the trust vote from the sidelines, they are the ones who will have to face their own trust vote come elections.
The Indian Express contacted several such MLAs and at least six of them categorically stated that voting with the BJP will erode the party’s “hold” on the Muslims and make them doubt its “secular” credentials. These MLAs come from constituencies where, on an average, 20% of the residents are Muslim. Consider their responses to “How does voting with the BJP affect the party in your constituency?”
•Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, CPM MLA from Moyna (Midnapore): Already, news has started doing the rounds about the Left voting with BJP. In villages, we are facing questions from Muslim voters about it. I do not know how we will tackle this when elections come. There is no denying that a section of the Muslim voters have moved away from us as was evident during the Panchayat polls. The party should consider this. The Trinamool and the Congress have already taken up the issue and have begun a whisper campaign in our villages.
•Abdus Sattar, CPM MLA from Amdanga (North 24-Parganas) & State Minister for Minorities Development: “Why me? I cannot answer this controversial question. I am a small man, why don’t you ask our party bigwigs about it?”
•Yunus Ali Sarkar, CPM MLA from Jalangi (Murshidabad): “I have to follow the party line on this issue. But the party must find an answer as to why we are voting with the BJP. The party has not done anything to address this question at the grass roots level, at least in my area.”
•Anisur Rahman CPM MLA from Domkal (Murshidabad) and State Animal Husbandry Welfare minister: “We are facing this question. I will only say that we will vote for the national cause and the BJP will vote for its own reason. We have no relations with them. They are a communal outfit. I cannot comment any further.”
•Samsul Islam Mollah CPM MLA from Chapra (Nadia): “Minority voters will misunderstand us because of our voting with the BJP in Parliament. Our party needs to do something to combat it.”
•Akkel Ali Khan, CPM MLA from Bagnan (Howrah): “We will have to follow our party line on the nuclear deal issue. At the same time, we will have to face questions from minority voters on why we voted with the BJP.”
•Muhammed Salim Gain, CPM MLA from Baduria (North 24-Parganas): “The move of voting with the BJP has truly raised doubts about us among the minority voters in West Bengal. People in my area are asking this question frequently. A section of minority voters have already deserted us as we saw in Panchayat elections, now this will further widen the gap. I have spoken to some of our party leaders regarding this. I have planned a campaign to combat this growing feeling of discontent. I have also planned to ask community leaders to tackle this question of voting with the BJP. BJP is our enemy Number One. So is America.”
•Mursalin Mollah CPM MLA from Mahestolla (South 24-Parganas): “Imperialism is a greater danger. Imperialism breeds communalism.”
•Mafuza Khatun, CPM MLA from Kumarganj (South Dinajpur): “I cannot comment on this controversial issue to the media. I am answerable to the party.”
•Abul Hasnat, RSP MLA from Jangipur (Murshidabad): “BJP is communal and our Enemy Number One. This issue of voting with BJP will impact on minority voters and we will have to find answers to convince them. But if there is any diktat (on voting), we have to follow.”
•Id Muhammed, RSP MLA from Bharatpur (Murshidabad): “I have full faith in my party. My party will definitely find a way to make the minority population of West Bengal understand the situation in which we are voting along with BJP.”
•Mehbub Mandal, Forward Bloc MLA from Galsi (Burdwan): “If the Left votes with BJP, it will definitely have a negative effect on our minority voters. It is true that a section of the minority Muslim voters had moved away from us in the recent Panchayat elections. We have to do something about it.”
•Mohammed Sohrab, CPM-backed RJD MLA from Burrabazar (Kolkata): “It will be disastrous to vote with the BJP. A big chunk of Muslim voters will not only move away but move against the Left.”
•Hasim Abdul Halim: CPM MLA form Entally (Kolkata ) and Speaker of the West Bengal Assembly: “As the Speaker of the State Assembly, I have no comments. But as a party member, I will follow the party mandate. This is all I can say.”
Front Page
‘The party must find an answer why we are voting with the BJP’
Ravik Bhattacharya
Posted online: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 0210 hrs Print Email
KOLKATA, JULY 15: CPM General Secretary Prakash Karat may draw precedents from pre-Babri Masjid political history to justify voting with the BJP. But on the ground in West Bengal, where his party matters more than anywhere else, there is growing disquiet — and it’s getting increasingly vocal.
Related Stories
Karat justifies voting with BJP: Cong did it too to pull down 3 govtsSomnath won’t play ball, Karat leaves it to ‘Comrade’The importance of being Jyoti BasuSpurned by Mulayam, Karat walks into his enemy Maya camp
Ad Links
Online Voter Registration India Book Pakistan Television
Of the 235 Left Front MLAs in the West Bengal Assembly, 34 are Muslim, 24 of them are from the CPM. And although each one of them will only watch the trust vote from the sidelines, they are the ones who will have to face their own trust vote come elections.
The Indian Express contacted several such MLAs and at least six of them categorically stated that voting with the BJP will erode the party’s “hold” on the Muslims and make them doubt its “secular” credentials. These MLAs come from constituencies where, on an average, 20% of the residents are Muslim. Consider their responses to “How does voting with the BJP affect the party in your constituency?”
•Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, CPM MLA from Moyna (Midnapore): Already, news has started doing the rounds about the Left voting with BJP. In villages, we are facing questions from Muslim voters about it. I do not know how we will tackle this when elections come. There is no denying that a section of the Muslim voters have moved away from us as was evident during the Panchayat polls. The party should consider this. The Trinamool and the Congress have already taken up the issue and have begun a whisper campaign in our villages.
•Abdus Sattar, CPM MLA from Amdanga (North 24-Parganas) & State Minister for Minorities Development: “Why me? I cannot answer this controversial question. I am a small man, why don’t you ask our party bigwigs about it?”
•Yunus Ali Sarkar, CPM MLA from Jalangi (Murshidabad): “I have to follow the party line on this issue. But the party must find an answer as to why we are voting with the BJP. The party has not done anything to address this question at the grass roots level, at least in my area.”
•Anisur Rahman CPM MLA from Domkal (Murshidabad) and State Animal Husbandry Welfare minister: “We are facing this question. I will only say that we will vote for the national cause and the BJP will vote for its own reason. We have no relations with them. They are a communal outfit. I cannot comment any further.”
•Samsul Islam Mollah CPM MLA from Chapra (Nadia): “Minority voters will misunderstand us because of our voting with the BJP in Parliament. Our party needs to do something to combat it.”
•Akkel Ali Khan, CPM MLA from Bagnan (Howrah): “We will have to follow our party line on the nuclear deal issue. At the same time, we will have to face questions from minority voters on why we voted with the BJP.”
•Muhammed Salim Gain, CPM MLA from Baduria (North 24-Parganas): “The move of voting with the BJP has truly raised doubts about us among the minority voters in West Bengal. People in my area are asking this question frequently. A section of minority voters have already deserted us as we saw in Panchayat elections, now this will further widen the gap. I have spoken to some of our party leaders regarding this. I have planned a campaign to combat this growing feeling of discontent. I have also planned to ask community leaders to tackle this question of voting with the BJP. BJP is our enemy Number One. So is America.”
•Mursalin Mollah CPM MLA from Mahestolla (South 24-Parganas): “Imperialism is a greater danger. Imperialism breeds communalism.”
•Mafuza Khatun, CPM MLA from Kumarganj (South Dinajpur): “I cannot comment on this controversial issue to the media. I am answerable to the party.”
•Abul Hasnat, RSP MLA from Jangipur (Murshidabad): “BJP is communal and our Enemy Number One. This issue of voting with BJP will impact on minority voters and we will have to find answers to convince them. But if there is any diktat (on voting), we have to follow.”
•Id Muhammed, RSP MLA from Bharatpur (Murshidabad): “I have full faith in my party. My party will definitely find a way to make the minority population of West Bengal understand the situation in which we are voting along with BJP.”
•Mehbub Mandal, Forward Bloc MLA from Galsi (Burdwan): “If the Left votes with BJP, it will definitely have a negative effect on our minority voters. It is true that a section of the minority Muslim voters had moved away from us in the recent Panchayat elections. We have to do something about it.”
•Mohammed Sohrab, CPM-backed RJD MLA from Burrabazar (Kolkata): “It will be disastrous to vote with the BJP. A big chunk of Muslim voters will not only move away but move against the Left.”
•Hasim Abdul Halim: CPM MLA form Entally (Kolkata ) and Speaker of the West Bengal Assembly: “As the Speaker of the State Assembly, I have no comments. But as a party member, I will follow the party mandate. This is all I can say.”
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Hindu - CPI(M) not averse to supporting UPA after next polls -- Sitaram Yechury
tag: n-deal
The Hindu - Indian Newspapers in English Language from eight editions.
CPI(M) not averse to supporting UPA after next polls
New Delhi (PTI): The Left parties may have snapped ties with the UPA over nuclear deal on an acrimonious note, but the CPI(M) is not averse to supporting the Congress-led coalition after the next elections provided "that they do not betray it like this time".
Senior CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said the present "experience will be a shadow" in the ties but did not rule out Left extending support to Congress based on the "circumstances and policies" it follows.
"It (support) depends on the policies they follow. If they follow a CMP without betraying like now," Yechury told Karan Thapar in CNN-IBN's Devil's Advocate programme.
"This experience (Government going to IAEA) will (however) be a shadow," he said, adding that the Left extended support to the UPA four years ago based on the common minimum programme (CMP) which "did not include the nuclear deal".
CPI General Secretary A B Bardhan has, three days ago said, the Left parties will not be averse to supporting Congress in the bigger fight against communal forces in future but indicated that it would not support a government led by Manmohan Singh.
He said there would be "occasions" in the future when the Left parties will have to fight against communal forces together with Congress and similar "secular" parties.
"He (Singh) will not always be the Prime Minister. I am talking about the Congress as an institution. I am talking of secular parties. We will have to deal with them," Bardhan said.
The Hindu - Indian Newspapers in English Language from eight editions.
CPI(M) not averse to supporting UPA after next polls
New Delhi (PTI): The Left parties may have snapped ties with the UPA over nuclear deal on an acrimonious note, but the CPI(M) is not averse to supporting the Congress-led coalition after the next elections provided "that they do not betray it like this time".
Senior CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said the present "experience will be a shadow" in the ties but did not rule out Left extending support to Congress based on the "circumstances and policies" it follows.
"It (support) depends on the policies they follow. If they follow a CMP without betraying like now," Yechury told Karan Thapar in CNN-IBN's Devil's Advocate programme.
"This experience (Government going to IAEA) will (however) be a shadow," he said, adding that the Left extended support to the UPA four years ago based on the common minimum programme (CMP) which "did not include the nuclear deal".
CPI General Secretary A B Bardhan has, three days ago said, the Left parties will not be averse to supporting Congress in the bigger fight against communal forces in future but indicated that it would not support a government led by Manmohan Singh.
He said there would be "occasions" in the future when the Left parties will have to fight against communal forces together with Congress and similar "secular" parties.
"He (Singh) will not always be the Prime Minister. I am talking about the Congress as an institution. I am talking of secular parties. We will have to deal with them," Bardhan said.
The Statesman - Who leaked the IAEA text? by Rajinder Puri
The Statesman - Indian Newspapers in English Language from two editions.
Who leaked the IAEA text?
Rajinder Puri
Politics has changed because the world has changed. But have media and political pundits kept pace with the change? They still focus exclusively on governments and tend to overlook the powerful influence exerted by transnational lobbies. Special interest groups cutting across national boundaries often render intra-government relations ineffectual. To illustrate this, consider the recent release of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) draft agreement text by the ministry of external affairs (MEA) on its website. The events attending this episode are instructive.
The first politician to state that the IAEA text was available on the Internet even while the government was maintaining secrecy over it was CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat. His disclosure compelled the MEA to post the text on its own site. Did Mr Karat or one of his party colleagues monitor the Internet and discover the text? It is possible. But more likely the information was passed on to him.
A few websites propagating nuclear non-proliferation had obtained the text and put it on their websites. One of these was the Arms Control Association (ACA), a powerful US NGO propagating non-proliferation. This organisation gives an annual award for the most effective work favouring global nuclear non-proliferation. Along with Dr Henry Kissinger, Mr Karat was shortlisted as a nominee for the award due to his efforts to block the Indo-US nuclear deal. Eventually he did not receive the award. But becoming a nominee for this award was itself prestigious. Is it not possible that ACA passed on the information about the availability of the IAEA text either directly or indirectly to Mr Karat? After obtaining the text, the ACA would be failing in its duty if it had not done so.
The further question is: From where did ACA obtain the IAEA text? It could have come from any one of the many nations that are members of the IAEA among whom the draft was circulated. Any representative on IAEA could have leaked the draft to interested websites. It could even be an individual pursuing a personal agenda without the knowledge of the government he represented. Global interest groups and the Internet thereby may have rendered governments ineffectual for suppressing information.
The media can take advantage of this to get at the truth in a way it never could earlier. Some months ago Dr Kissinger visited India at the thick of the nuclear deal controversy. He met senior politicians opposed to the deal. The newspapers assumed he had come to push India into signing the deal. It is reliably learnt that at least one of the opposition leaders he met was left puzzled by Dr Kissinger not raising the subject of the deal even once. Then why did he come? Quite possibly his visit was a cosmetic exercise to appear on the side of the deal which he might have calculated was unstoppable. It is good politics to be on the winning side. Subsequent to his Indian visit, Dr Kissinger, after making a hash of nuclear non-proliferation through the kind courtesy of Dr AQ Khan, is now working to achieve global nuclear disarmament.
Much is being made of Senator Barack Obama’s newfound support for the Indo-US deal. But his change in stance came after India approached the IAEA. So why lose funds and votes of the growing Indian community in the US? Politicians will play their old games and continue to flip-flop as it suits them. Only those among them who recognise the inevitabilities of the information age will display total transparency to project their views. They will be the statesmen who will achieve a new level of democracy to change the world.
(The writer is a veteran journalist
and cartoonist)
Who leaked the IAEA text?
Rajinder Puri
Politics has changed because the world has changed. But have media and political pundits kept pace with the change? They still focus exclusively on governments and tend to overlook the powerful influence exerted by transnational lobbies. Special interest groups cutting across national boundaries often render intra-government relations ineffectual. To illustrate this, consider the recent release of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) draft agreement text by the ministry of external affairs (MEA) on its website. The events attending this episode are instructive.
The first politician to state that the IAEA text was available on the Internet even while the government was maintaining secrecy over it was CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat. His disclosure compelled the MEA to post the text on its own site. Did Mr Karat or one of his party colleagues monitor the Internet and discover the text? It is possible. But more likely the information was passed on to him.
A few websites propagating nuclear non-proliferation had obtained the text and put it on their websites. One of these was the Arms Control Association (ACA), a powerful US NGO propagating non-proliferation. This organisation gives an annual award for the most effective work favouring global nuclear non-proliferation. Along with Dr Henry Kissinger, Mr Karat was shortlisted as a nominee for the award due to his efforts to block the Indo-US nuclear deal. Eventually he did not receive the award. But becoming a nominee for this award was itself prestigious. Is it not possible that ACA passed on the information about the availability of the IAEA text either directly or indirectly to Mr Karat? After obtaining the text, the ACA would be failing in its duty if it had not done so.
The further question is: From where did ACA obtain the IAEA text? It could have come from any one of the many nations that are members of the IAEA among whom the draft was circulated. Any representative on IAEA could have leaked the draft to interested websites. It could even be an individual pursuing a personal agenda without the knowledge of the government he represented. Global interest groups and the Internet thereby may have rendered governments ineffectual for suppressing information.
The media can take advantage of this to get at the truth in a way it never could earlier. Some months ago Dr Kissinger visited India at the thick of the nuclear deal controversy. He met senior politicians opposed to the deal. The newspapers assumed he had come to push India into signing the deal. It is reliably learnt that at least one of the opposition leaders he met was left puzzled by Dr Kissinger not raising the subject of the deal even once. Then why did he come? Quite possibly his visit was a cosmetic exercise to appear on the side of the deal which he might have calculated was unstoppable. It is good politics to be on the winning side. Subsequent to his Indian visit, Dr Kissinger, after making a hash of nuclear non-proliferation through the kind courtesy of Dr AQ Khan, is now working to achieve global nuclear disarmament.
Much is being made of Senator Barack Obama’s newfound support for the Indo-US deal. But his change in stance came after India approached the IAEA. So why lose funds and votes of the growing Indian community in the US? Politicians will play their old games and continue to flip-flop as it suits them. Only those among them who recognise the inevitabilities of the information age will display total transparency to project their views. They will be the statesmen who will achieve a new level of democracy to change the world.
(The writer is a veteran journalist
and cartoonist)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
India's N-Deal: Rajinder Puri on Prakash Karat
Karate Chop : outlookindia.com
COUNTERPOINT
Karate Chop
Karat was opposed to India having the bomb. But he wants India to be able to conduct nuclear tests. He was opposed to India becoming a nuclear power. But he wants Iran to become a nuclear power... ......
Rajinder Puri on Prakash Karat
Journalists called Prakash Karat India’s most powerful man. More powerful than the PM, that is. They called him India’s second most powerful politician. Second to Sonia Gandhi, that is. Karat’s fame grew with his handling of the N-deal issue. How did he handle it?
When the UPA government decided to execute the NDA government’s initiative for an Indo-US N-deal, Karat opposed it. He said national security and India’s independent foreign policy were compromised. The Left would withdraw support. The government went ahead and negotiated the 123 Agreement for the deal. Karat sought the agreement text. The government showed him the text. The agreement did not refer to nuclear tests. But the US government passed a domestic law, the Hyde Act, which forbade help to any nation conducting nuclear tests.
Karat said that the Hyde Act deprived India of its independence and jeopardised its national security. The government said that the US President was bound by the Hyde Act, not the Indian government. No international commitment prevented India from nuclear testing or pursuing an independent foreign policy. Karat asked why India had supported the UN resolution against Iran. The government said Iran violated its own assurances to IAEA. Russia and China also opposed Iran.
Karat was opposed to India having the bomb. But he wants India to be able to conduct nuclear tests. He was opposed to India becoming a nuclear power. But he wants Iran to become a nuclear power. The UPA government and Left allies set up a committee to settle differences. This happened years ago. The committee has met nine times. Each time the government reiterated its intent to sign the deal. Each time Karat issued an ultimatum to withdraw support if the government went ahead.
Now a few months remain for the government’s tenure to end. Anticipating the Left’s withdrawal the Congress has held talks with other opposition parties to cobble a majority in parliament. It seems to have succeeded. So Karat asked the government for clarifications about what the government would tell IAEA. We still do not know if he will or will not withdraw support. Or when he might withdraw support. It does not matter. Forget the merits or otherwise of the N-deal. Consider the merits of Karat. On July 14 he will launch a nationwide agitation against the government’s economic and foreign policies which it pursued for four years surviving on his support. One understands Karat admires Stalin. What would Stalin have thought of India’s most powerful man?
COUNTERPOINT
Karate Chop
Karat was opposed to India having the bomb. But he wants India to be able to conduct nuclear tests. He was opposed to India becoming a nuclear power. But he wants Iran to become a nuclear power... ......
Rajinder Puri on Prakash Karat
Journalists called Prakash Karat India’s most powerful man. More powerful than the PM, that is. They called him India’s second most powerful politician. Second to Sonia Gandhi, that is. Karat’s fame grew with his handling of the N-deal issue. How did he handle it?
When the UPA government decided to execute the NDA government’s initiative for an Indo-US N-deal, Karat opposed it. He said national security and India’s independent foreign policy were compromised. The Left would withdraw support. The government went ahead and negotiated the 123 Agreement for the deal. Karat sought the agreement text. The government showed him the text. The agreement did not refer to nuclear tests. But the US government passed a domestic law, the Hyde Act, which forbade help to any nation conducting nuclear tests.
Karat said that the Hyde Act deprived India of its independence and jeopardised its national security. The government said that the US President was bound by the Hyde Act, not the Indian government. No international commitment prevented India from nuclear testing or pursuing an independent foreign policy. Karat asked why India had supported the UN resolution against Iran. The government said Iran violated its own assurances to IAEA. Russia and China also opposed Iran.
Karat was opposed to India having the bomb. But he wants India to be able to conduct nuclear tests. He was opposed to India becoming a nuclear power. But he wants Iran to become a nuclear power. The UPA government and Left allies set up a committee to settle differences. This happened years ago. The committee has met nine times. Each time the government reiterated its intent to sign the deal. Each time Karat issued an ultimatum to withdraw support if the government went ahead.
Now a few months remain for the government’s tenure to end. Anticipating the Left’s withdrawal the Congress has held talks with other opposition parties to cobble a majority in parliament. It seems to have succeeded. So Karat asked the government for clarifications about what the government would tell IAEA. We still do not know if he will or will not withdraw support. Or when he might withdraw support. It does not matter. Forget the merits or otherwise of the N-deal. Consider the merits of Karat. On July 14 he will launch a nationwide agitation against the government’s economic and foreign policies which it pursued for four years surviving on his support. One understands Karat admires Stalin. What would Stalin have thought of India’s most powerful man?
Muslim bodies describe nuclear deal as 'anti-India'
The Hindu - Indian Newspapers in English Language from eight editions.
Muslim bodies describe nuclear deal as 'anti-India'
New Delhi (PTI): The Indo-US nuclear deal on Tuesday came in for sharp criticisms from various Muslim organisations, which described it as "anti-India" and vowed to oppose it tooth and nail.
Five Muslim bodies condemned the deal, saying it seeks to establish a strategic alliance between India and the US, a relation which "would pose a serious threat to India's sovereignty and independent foreign policy".
At a symposium 'Indo-US nuclear deal and national interest', the organisations said they would start a movement to oppose the agreement tooth and nail.
"The deal is a covert design to have greater strategic alliance with the US. This will make India subservient to American imperialism. It is not against any particular community or religious group. The entire country's interest is at stake," Zafrul Islam Khan, president of the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, said.
He said nuclear energy cannot solve India's energy needs at all. This will push the country to slavery, Khan added.
SQR Ilyas, editor of Afkar-e-Milli and the convener of the symposium, said efforts have been initiated to unite anti-imperialist forces to fight against the deal.
"We will go to the people and make them understand the dangers of the deal," he said.
President of Indian National League Mohd Sulaiman said the deal "will open the doors for the Americans to scan our reactors".
"NSG is under their control. This will affect our sovereignty," he said.
Muslim bodies describe nuclear deal as 'anti-India'
New Delhi (PTI): The Indo-US nuclear deal on Tuesday came in for sharp criticisms from various Muslim organisations, which described it as "anti-India" and vowed to oppose it tooth and nail.
Five Muslim bodies condemned the deal, saying it seeks to establish a strategic alliance between India and the US, a relation which "would pose a serious threat to India's sovereignty and independent foreign policy".
At a symposium 'Indo-US nuclear deal and national interest', the organisations said they would start a movement to oppose the agreement tooth and nail.
"The deal is a covert design to have greater strategic alliance with the US. This will make India subservient to American imperialism. It is not against any particular community or religious group. The entire country's interest is at stake," Zafrul Islam Khan, president of the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, said.
He said nuclear energy cannot solve India's energy needs at all. This will push the country to slavery, Khan added.
SQR Ilyas, editor of Afkar-e-Milli and the convener of the symposium, said efforts have been initiated to unite anti-imperialist forces to fight against the deal.
"We will go to the people and make them understand the dangers of the deal," he said.
President of Indian National League Mohd Sulaiman said the deal "will open the doors for the Americans to scan our reactors".
"NSG is under their control. This will affect our sovereignty," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
