Talks On Desbite Marxist Barking Worthless
Left parties on Thursday ruled out any reconciliation with the Government till it puts on hold the agreement and said its support should not be taken for granted
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: alashbiswaskl@gmail.com">palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
STILL A DILEMMA
To less cluttered minds, the Marxists’ strategy sessions are all about going round in circles. The meetings of its politburo and central committee in Calcutta were supposed to indicate which way the Communist Party of India (Marxist) will go about the controversy over the India-US nuclear deal. After four days of hair-splitting on the choice between the ideological and the tactical line, the party has left the country no wiser on the issue. Instead, Prakash Karat, the party’s general secretary, only reiterated his earlier warning to the United Progressive Alliance government against going ahead with the deal. The previous meeting of the party’s central committee had done exactly this in August. Between the two sessions, a committee comprising leaders of the UPA and the Left discussed contentious issues relating to the deal. But even those parleys do not seem to have had any effect on the CPI(M)’s position. If the sessions in Calcutta prove anything, it is that the party continues to be as confused as ever over the deal in particular and the India-US relations in general. Its argument that the nuclear deal is an assault on India’s sovereignty is as specious as the objections it had once raised on the same ground to the country joining the World Trade Organization. The UPA government cannot afford to stall India’s progress and its integration into the international community by submitting to the Left’s blackmail.
Yet, the party conclave in Calcutta seems to have had one significant fallout. Unlike in the past, the party’s leaders in Bengal are reported to have put up a united resistance to Mr Karat’s adventurism. Between them, Jyoti Basu and Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee have ruled Bengal long enough to know that practical politics is more important than theoretical nitpicking in winning the people’s confidence. Also, the leaders in Bengal have a mandate that Mr Karat does not have. It is the mandate to govern the state. The CPI(M) may be in a dilemma to marry its strategic and tactical lines. But that means little to the people of Bengal who want the party to fulfil its commitment to revive the state’s economy. Mr Karat has not spelt out if the party would withdraw its support to Manmohan Singh’s government if New Delhi “operationalizes” the deal. A political party sometimes has a historic duty to rein in its overreaching leader.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071003/asp/opinion/story_8387338.asp
The United Progressive Alliance-Left stand-off on Indo-US nuclear deal notwithstanding, the Indian Atomic Energy department is holding consultations with International Atomic Energy Agency for working out a safeguards agreement under the deal.Foreign capital is flooding the country. Our experience is by no means unique. There has been a surge of capital into emerging markets in recent years following the dramatic fall during the east-Asian crisis of 1997-98. Official flows have been substituted by private flows; debt by equity. But the Indian experience departs from that of emerging markets as a group in two respects. Net capital flows to emerging Asia and Latin America are off their highs of a decade ago. As the IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report (September 2007) points out gross flows are close to their historical highs but capital outflows too have risen sharply, hence net capital inflows are lower than their historical highs. In India, however, both gross and net capital flows are higher than in the past. Secondly, in emerging markets as a whole, FDI contribution to total flows has declined. In India in contrast, FDI has overtaken portfolio flows for the first time in the post-reform period.
A day ahead of the crucial meeting of the joint mechanism on the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Left parties on Thursday ruled out any reconciliation with the Government till it puts on hold the agreement and said its support should not be taken for granted. On the eve of the meeting, the outside supporters also sent a note to the UPA on their concerns over the implications of Hyde Act on India's foreign and security policies.
Government had earlier sent its views on various points raised by the Left on the agenda items of the second round on September 19.
CPI General Secretary A B Bardhan said UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi's statements in New York indicated that the government would go ahead with operationalising the deal and cautioned the UPA not to take its differences with the Left lightly. He warned that Left support should not be taken for granted.
"UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi has admitted the differences during her speech in New York but preferred to remain silent on how to resolve them," he said in Patna, adding that unless the government puts the deal on hold, there could not be any reconciliation.
As strong remarks emanated from the Left quarters, AICC General Secretary and Union Minister Prithviraj Chavan expressed hope that the issues would be resolved. "We are trying our best to resolve the issues. We are trying to convince our Left friends," he said, but declined to hazard any guess whether any middle-ground would be found soon. He said even the Left leaders were saying the nuclear issue was "a matter which requires a long-haul".
Equating communalism with imperialism, the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) has said that while it supports the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in order to fight communalism, it is opposed to the government's leaning towards 'imperialist' US.
'The CPI-M and the other Left parties had extended outside support to this UPA government precisely to prevent the communal forces from holding the reins of state power,' the CPI-M said in an editorial in the latest issue of party mouthpiece 'People's Democracy'.
'This support, however, was based on the CMP (Common Minimum Programme). Surely, no one can expect the CPI-M to support this UPA government, which in violation of the CMP is pursuing to continue the direction of India's foreign policy that was begun in the first place by the BJP-led NDA (National Democratic Alliance) government.'
It blamed the BJP-led NDA for taking the country into a 'direction of subservience to US imperialist strategic interests in the world today' and alleged that it had established an 'illegitimate nexus between imperialism's trimurti (trinity) - the World Bank, IMF (International Monetary Fund) and WTO (World Trade Organisation)- and the communalism's trishul (trident).'
'The interests of India as a nation and the livelihood of our vast millions of people need to be protected from being squeezed between the trimurti and the trishul,' it said.
The party said both communalism and imperialism were dangerous.
'Both (communalism and imperialism) are dangerous, both need to be fought and at no cost can the struggle against one be given up leave alone weakened in the name of struggling against the other.'
The article pointed out that the CPI-M had an 'unblemished record' of protecting the Indian social fabric from communalism and 'safeguarding the country's sovereignty from being eroded by imperialist incursions'.
Taking exception to allegations that the CPI-M was no longer fighting against communalism but confined to its protest against imperialism, the editorial said: 'The Indian people simply do not have a choice. Both communalism and imperialism need to be fought against. Those who pit one against the other are doing disservice to both the country and our people and are in fact aiding both these forces that seek to erode our sovereignty and therefore our strength as a strong independent nation in the world.'
The CPI-M, which has been opposing the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh government's foreign policy as pro-US, also alleged that US imperialism was seeking to 'impose a unipolar world under its tutelage'.
"Since the process has to go on, we are holding consultations as we cannot wait till the last moment to make the agreed text ready, which is the pre-requisite for the draft agreement," a top source at the Department of Atomic Energy told PTI.With intricacies involved in the negotiations on the safeguards issues, "it is expected that simultaneously several things had to be taken up and thus we have to go ahead with the continuous discussions/negotiations with the agency officials," the sources said.
The Left parties may be screaming themselves hoarse against a strategic relationship with the US but an unfazed external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee said India and the US shared deepening convergences based on "values and interests." The relationship, he said, was for "mutual benefit," denying the Left stand that India would be strategically squashed by the superpower. Addressing a premier US think tank, Council for Foreign Relations, Mukherjee gave a public thumbs up to the nuclear deal, in the face of Left criticism as well as uncertainty in many quarters about the future of the deal.
"The bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement that India and the US have finalised indicates the way forward, which should lead to lifting of technology restrictions and opening up of cooperation in this field with several countries," he said.
Kollam (Ker): Accusing the Congress party of misleading the people on the India-US nuclear deal, Forward Bloc general secretary G Devarajan today said the Left parties should withdraw support to the government. Since the government had declined to take Parliament into confidence on the issue, the Left parties should withdraw support to the government, he told reporters here. The government's contention that the Hyde Act would have no bearing on the agreement was contrary to facts. As leading partner of the UPA, the Congress was misleading the people, he said. The move to go ahead with the agreement would amount to naked violation of CMP which had stated that the country would pursue its independent foreign policy, he said.
Meanwhile, Insisting that the UN structure should reflect "contemporary realities", External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Wednesday said India should get a seat in the Security Council as it has all the "ingredients" to be a permanent member. The international system has undergone changes since the inception of the world body in 1945, he said on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS.
"We do believe that India should get a seat in the Security Council, because first we believe -- not only we, we believe certain other countries should also have its place in the Security Council, because in 1945 when these institutions were created, since then world has undergone major changes," Mukherjee said.
"...All over the world, changes have taken place. Therefore, in the functioning of the United Nations, in its structure and in its contents, it should reflect the contemporary realities," he said.
"That's why the reforms of the United Nations is necessary, and, of course, India considers it qualifies all the ingredients necessary to be a permanent member of Security Council," the Minister added.
In September during the IAEA general conference, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar could not formally take up any negotiations on the safeguards agreement due to political situation in India, although a few rounds of informal talks were carried out, sources said.
Early this week, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi [Images] in New York played down the Left's concerns on the Indo-US nuclear deal saying they were not a cause for "alarm" and said in a democratic process it was important to listen to all points of view to arrive at a consensus.
Since the nature of the safeguards for India has been decided and could be placed under the agency's safeguards system of 1966, it is better that the "agreed text" is being kept ready, sources said.
The IAEA safeguards agreement is one of the pre-requisites for commencement of international nuclear commerce.
Meanwhile, IAEA sources said last month that the provisionally extended safeguards system of 1966 is a revised system with additional provisions for reprocessing plants. All future Indian nuclear plants under the civilian domain could be placed under the agency's safeguards mechanism that could be at par with that for the five declared nuclear powers.
Without creating India-specific safeguards, IAEA sources indicated that in all probability, they could be placed under the agency's safeguards system of 1965, as provisionally extended in 1966 and 1968.
This could be essentially on the same line as that of the safeguards arrangement made between India and IAEA for two units of the Tarapur atomic power plant set up in 1969 and two units in Rajasthan in 1971 and the two Russian plants, which are under construction at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu.
DAE officials said the actual safeguard agreement may conform to safeguards system of 1966 and additional protocol may not be required by IAEA itself.
It is not clear whether the US Congress will accept an agreement which does not subscribe to additional protocol which has been made conditional to the bilateral understanding.
CPI(M)-led LF, Stop This Nonsense
http://www.cpiml.in/071001.htm
It is high time that somebody should tell CPI(M) and its LF cronies to stop their barking when they have decided for ever not to bite. First of all they continued to prop up the UPA government for three and half years when pooh-poohing the CMP it continued to indulge in any number of anti-people, anti-national activities, unprecedentedly speeding up imperialist globalisation. It has increased the countries debt to $ 155 billion, subverted the agrarian field as a result of which peasants continue to commit suicide, indulge in import of wheat at Rs. 16.50 per kilo when the Indian farmers is paid Rs. 8.50 per kilo, thereby subverting self-reliance in this field, snatched away lakhs of acres of land from peasantry for corporate farming, SEZs and similar projects, thrown out lakhs of families from urban areas in the name of beautification, casualisation and contractualisation of labour field is made rampant, even pension funds are used for speculation in share markets, going to introduce liberalisation of capital account, opened defence industries also to private sector, indulged in numerous joint exercises with US forces as part of developing ‘strategic relations’, voted against Iran under US orders, created conditions of spiralling prices of essential commodities and unemployment and what not. It also refused to legislate for agricultural workers, casual workers and women as promised in CMP. All these days Karat and company were barking non-stop while the thiefs were doing whatever they wanted to enslave the people and the country. The thiefs, the dacoits, the mafias in power did not bother at all about their barking. Or, were not these barking dogs providing protection for the thiefs!
At last when the Nuke Deal came, as if it is a bolt from the sky, as if they are waking up from a long slumber, they shouted, if it is operationalised they will bite. Though it looked comical, especially after Manmohan’s interview with The Telegraph, it was a change. After allowing the imperialist lackeys like Manmohan, Chidambaram and Ahluwalia to run the show according to the comprador agenda of Sonia’s Congress without hindrance all these years, even any talk about biting was a change!
But now Budhadev says he is for nuclear energy. Jyothi Basu okays it. Jyothi Basu who has never looked beyond Bengali middle class all these years, is now insisting that Bengal want nuke power and CPI(M) in Bengal want Manmohan’s government, so Karat should tone down his talk about biting. As if waiting for the cue Karat announced that criticising nuke deal does not mean destabilising the government.
Meanwhile US has demanded speeding up of the nuke deal finalisation. It has arranged IAEA and NSG meetings in November to clear India’s applications and finalisation of the deal in December by US Senate. Meanwhile the UPA-LF joint committee has taken up the ritual of convincing LF that there is no harm in going ahead with the deal. The picture is clear. Whatever the LF may say or do, the Congress leadership has decided to go ahead with the deal. Knowing it full, CPI(M) leaders are preparing ground to tell their followers that after all the deal is not so bad so as to withdraw support to UPA government.
The dilemma faced by the CPI(M) is becoming clearer to more and more people. If a by-election takes place it will loose number of seats and the privileged position enjoyed as a prop of this government. As far as CPI is concerned, it is almost certain that it will loose the national party status. So at any cost both want completion of the full term by this government. It is not the people’s interest, not the national interest, but the crumbs of power they enjoy that matters. So the social democrats are changing their tones to justify the swallowing of their previous out bursts..
What they are doing in the name of ‘Left’ is a shame to the left movement, it is ridiculous and hypocratical. It is meaningless to expect that they will stop this mockery. They shall continue it till their dooms day. Still it is the responsibility of the revolutionary left and patriotic-democratic forces to ask them to stop this nonsense.
Delhi: Meeting Against SEZs, Nuke Deal
As the culminating programme of 100th birthday observations of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Navjawan Sabha, Delhi organised a well attended hall meeting on 23rd September from 2 PM to 5 PM at Shahabad Dairy area on the SEZs, Nuke Deal and Problems of People in the context of reiterating the relevance of the teaching of Bhagat Singh.
Speaking on the occasion com. K.N. Ramachandran explained in detail what is SEZ and Nuclear Deal in continuation of imperialist globalisation and how such policies are devastating the people lives and enslaving the country to imperialist, especially US imperialist, domination. He called upon the youth to get organised inspired by Shaheed Bhagat Singh and work for revolutionary transformation of the society. Com. Jagdish presided, com. Amresh welcomed the participants and com. Anil master conducted the meeting. Com. P.K. Shahi, secretary, Delhi state committee of CPI(ML), called on the youth to get prepared to fight the ruling system which is making life impossible for all toiling sections.
Conspiracy to Make Executive Supreme
When the question of subjecting the Indo-US Nuke Deal to parliamentary approval came up, the speaker of Lok Sabha had ruled that ‘no discussion with voting’ can be allowed as parliament has no such power. The UPA government took shelter under it, the LF repeated it and even BJP-led NDA joined the chorus. We are reproducing the joint statement of three eminent jurists who have challenged this interpretation of the Constitution.(see page 9). From what they have explained, it is clear that the Executive has no power to sign agreements of such importance without getting parliament’s approval. It shows that the lackey or running dog of the establishment Somnath Chatterjee, the nominee of CPI(M), is serving the ruling class not only to throw out whatever sovereignty the country has through this deal, but also becoming a party to subverting whatever democratic content the Indian Constitution has.
In the 60 years of Indian parliament, Somnath Chatterjee, the CPI(M) leader, has shown that he is most loyal running dog of the establishment among all speakers to this day. The way he is disturbed when the ‘santity’ of this pig’s den is affected, the way he is ‘sincere’ to his post, exposes the total degeneration of his party to parliamentarism. And he has cheated Indian people by ruling that Lok Sabha has no right to vote on the agreement. The jurists statement exposes this running dog, his party and the whole ruling system engaged in making the Executive the Supreme.
Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Powers of the Executive
[Statement of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.B. Sawant, former judges of Supreme Court, and Justice Suresh, former judge of Bombay High Court — Red Star]
1. The Executive has no power to enter into any agreement, either with a foreign government or a foreign organization , which is binding on the nation. The agreement will be binding only when it is ratified by the Parliament. There is no provision in the Constitution which gives such authority to the executive. We have a written Constitution and, therefore, we must have a written provision in the Constitution which gives such authority to the Executive.
2. Articles 73 and 253 and entries 6, 13 & 14 in the Union List of the Constitution refer to the powers of the Executive. Article 73, among other things, states that, — “the executive power of the Union shall extend (a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has powers to make laws, and (b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement.” This means that the matters on which the Parliament has no powers to make laws are also matters on which the Union Government cannot exercise its executive power. It also means, conversely, that the Union Government cannot exercise its executive powers beyond the legislative powers of the Union. Both these propositions have an underlying assumption that, before the Union Government exercises its executive power, there is a law enacted by the Parliament on the subject concerned. Some argue that the provisions of Article 73(1)(a) gives power to the Executive to act on subjects within the jurisdiction of the Parliament, even if the Parliament does not make a law on those subjects. This is both a distortion and a perversion of the said provision and a subversion of Parliament’s supreme control over the Executive. If this interpretation is accepted then the Union Executive can act on all subjects on which the Parliament has to make law, without there being any law made by the Parliament. You can thus do away with the Parliament and the Parliament’s duties to make laws. We will then have a lawless Government. Democracy presumes there should be a rule of law and all Executive actions will be supported by law and that there shall be no arbitary action by any authority, including the Union Executive. It may also be necessary in that connection to remember that it is for this very reason that when the Parliament is not in session and, therefore, unable to enact a law, that the power is given to the President to issue an ordinance (which is a law), so that the Executive may act according to its provisions. These ordinances are to be placed before the Parliament within six weeks of its reassembly, and if Parliament approves they become law. The Constitution-makers were, therefore, clear in their mind that the Executive cannot act without the authority of law and it has no power independent of law made by the Parliament .
3. Article 253 , which is relevant in the context of the present Indo-US nuclear deal, is very specific on the subject. It says, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, Parliament has power to make any law — for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference , association or other body.” This Article gives specifically the power to the Parliament to make laws on treaties , etc. with other governments or even on decisions made in international conferences , etc. This makes it clear that even the treaties , etc. entered into with other countries or decisions made at international conferences have to be translated into laws and read with the provisions already discussed above , before they are acted upon by the Executive .
4. The Union List Entry -6 makes “Atomic energy and mineral resources necessary for its production” a subject matter of legislation of the Parliament. Similarly, Entry -13 which reads, “— participation in international conferences , associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made there at” and Entry-14 which reads, “entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign countries” make them also subject matters of legislation by the Parliament.
5. All these provisions make it abundantly clear that the present Indo- US nuclear deal cannot be implemented by the Union Government unless it is translated into a law enacted by the Parliament. Any action, therefore, taken by the Union Government to implement the said deal without the authority of the Parliament is un-Constitutional, because it amounts to the usurpation of power of the Parliament by the Union Executive. It is also undemocratic because the Union Executive will be acting arbitrarily, trampling both the rule of law and also the wishes of the people of India. It will be nothing short of an arbitrary rule by the Executive, leading to an un-Constitutional government in the country, because what is arbitrary is also un-Constitutional.
6. With regard to the Indo-US nuclear deal, it may be stated that, on the face of it, it is subject to the internal laws of both the countries, namely India and the US Article 2.1 of the 123 Agreement states in the clearest possible terms, “Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and licence requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” This means that the 123 Agreement is subject to all the present internal laws of the US government, right from the US Atomic Energy Act 1954 to the Hyde Act 2006, all inclusive. Not only that, but it will be subject to amendments to these present laws and to any new law that may be enacted in the future. This position is further made clear also by Articles 3.3 and 5.2 of this agreement. Article 3.3 states, “This agreement does not require the transfer of any information regarding matters outside the scope of this agreement, or information that the Parties are not permitted under their respective treaties, national laws , or regulations to transfer”. Article 5.2 states, “— Transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment , reprocessing or heavy water production facilities will be subject to the Parties’ respective applicable laws , regulations and license policies.” What holds good for Article 2.1 holds also good for these two provisions as well.
7. Furthermore, Article 5.6(a) of the agreement clearly states that “ As part of its implementation of the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement, the United States is committed to seeking agreement from the US Congress to amend its domestic laws and to work with friends and allies to adjust the practices of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations.” In view of this statement in the 123 Agreement dated August 2007, it is clear that before the US is obliged to act under this agreement in so far as assured and continual fuel supplies are concerned, the US Administration will have to approach the US Congress to get their present laws, including the Hyde Act 2006, amended. It is unfortunate that the Government of India is rushing through this deal even before the US has got its laws, including the Hyde Act 2006 , amended to assure life-time uninterrupted fuel supplies, under all circumstances, for the nuclear reactors we intend to import. As it stands, the 123 Agreement of August 2007 does not in anyway provide binding fuel supply assurances.
Turning point in history
Akash Bisht Delhi
http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/portal/2007/10/1266
If farmers in Nandigram feel that the CPI(M) has betrayed them, they can find solace in the fact that farmers from different parts of the country are up in arms against the brutal police action in West Bengal. More than 2,50,000 people from different parts of the country were in Delhi from March 21 to March 23, to protest the new pro-business and pro-multinational economic policies of the UPA and West Bengal governments, the Nandigram massacre.
Adding his voice to the protest, which was organised by the Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist-Liberation (CPI-ML), was Chhagan Lal, a dalit farmer from the Sitamarhi district of Bihar: “There is a sense of insecurity among the farmers and we feel that if today it’s Nandigram, tomorrow it might be Sitamarhi, Sivan or Saupal. My grandfather fought against the British to save our land and the day doesn’t seem far away when we will be fighting the government and multinationals to save our forefathers land.”
On March 14, policemen stormed Nandigram to suppress protests against the state government’s plans to seize 10,000 acres of land. The police shot dead innocent villagers and wounded many. For the farmers and peasants of the state, who have earlier looked to the CPI (M) party for protection against communal and casteist forces, Nandigram came as a shock.
“Reports indicate that more than 15 people were killed. Numerous cases of missing persons and rapes have also been reported. This was state-sponsored terrorism, with the police and the CPI(M) cadres acting hand-in-glove,” said Manisha Sethi of the Forum for Democratic Initiatives.
Most of the farmers, who gathered in New Delhi to protest against SEZs, accused the Left Front government of betraying the poor to protect the interests of big industries and multinationals in India. “Till Nandigram and Singur happened, the CPI (M) was perceived as a workers’ and peasants’ party. But they have turned their backs on the people who supported them wholeheartedly. Their men are killing innocent farmers, raping women and forcibly taking away fertile land,” said Madan Mohan, a dalit farmer from Mathura. The March 14 incident, which is looked on by many as a ‘massacre’ perpetrated by the CPI (M), has also been forthrightly condemned by activists, artists and intellectuals who have long supported the party.
Dipankar Bhattacharya, general secretary of CPI-ML (Liberation), condemned the incident and said, “Nandigram, like Naxalbari, will be a turning point in the history of West Bengal and India. In the early 1970s, Charu Majumdar, along with several others, was killed by the CPI (M) and Siddharth Shankar Ray of the Congress to suppress the Naxalbari movement. Today the CPI (M) is killing innocent peasants in Nandigram, backed by a corporate government and multinational corporations, for land acquisition.” He also demanded that Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, as chief minister of West Bengal, should take the responsibility and resign.
After her visit to Nandigram, social activist Medha Patkar roundly criticised the Left government: “State terrorism by the CPI(M) cadre and the police have to be opposed through non-violent struggle. The fight against the SEZs and forcible displacement of the people of West Bengal and others is because of neo-liberal globalisation. The prevailing situation in West Bengal is no different from the one in Gujarat where thousands of Muslims are being displaced and ghettoised by the state government. What happened is not right and the ruling party in the state is at fault. In this case, women were targeted. We never expected that the Left would behave in such a heartless manner. The police is not normalising the situation. Instead they are causing the disturbance in the area.”
However, the CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat has defended the police action and denied any involvement by his party people in the incident at Nandigram.
Jammu and Kashmir Zero Violence
BY: PAUL BEERSMANS
http://www.jkreporter.com/guest_column.html
As early as 13 August 1948 the UN Commission for India and Pakistan requested Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the State as a pre-condition for organising the plebiscite. The same Commission in its resolution of 5 January 1949 repeated this request. Until this date, Pakistan has not withdrawn its armed forces and consequently the plebiscite has not been held.
Following conclusio
