Palash Speaks

Nandigram matter of concern, not shame!

Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: alashchandrabiswas@gmail.com">palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com
Below is a hard-hitting interview between IBN's Karan Thapar and Brinda Karat, CPI(M)'s Indian politburo member, on the Nandigram massacres.
I wish similar courage was shown by U.S. journalists interviewing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice or Hillary Clinton on Iraq. Regardless of the merits of the two parties on the Nandigram interview, Thapar's questions are bold and incisive, unlike the inane conversations we hear on NBC, PBS or CNN.
-Partha
http://www.geocitie s.com/chokmoki
__________
"Nandigram matter of concern, not shame"
IBNlive.com
Sunday November 18, 09:40 PM
The CPI-M’s image of being a humanist party is in ruins after its workers run amok in Nandigram, West Bengal, and allegedly attacked and murdered opponents. How does the party defend itself? Brinda Karat was asked on Devil's Advocate
Karan Thapar: How embarrassed are you by the behaviour of your party cadres in Nandigram?
Brinda Karat: It is a matter of concern that the way Nandigram has been reported, an image has been created about the CPM cadre. The fact of the matter is that we have lost 28 of our cadres. So it’s really not the question of embarrassment. It is a question of deep concern.
Karan Thapar: You are expressing concern at the way it is reported. Let me instead quote to you the Governor. He calls the behaviour of your cadre “totally unlawful and unacceptable” . Ministers in your own government have said that it is now difficult to show our face to the public. Your own allies say that the CPM alone is responsible. And instead you are not embarrassed, but you are blaming the Press for the way it is reported.
Brinda Karat: I would say that there has been a one-sided reporting on Nandigram. And it is really for that reason that I have said I am extremely concerned.
Karan Thapar: But aren’t you now concerned about your cadre as well reporting apart?
Brinda Karat: If you can give me specific instances of what you are referring to, then I could certainly respond to it. But my cadre has been at the receiving end of it for 11 months.
Karan Thapar: Telegraph newspaper, November 7: “Nearly 10,000 villagers fled as CPM cadres started setting one house after another on fire.”
“A large number of armed person form outside the district have forced themselves upon the people of Nandigram,” said the Governor.
Brinda Karat: The Governor is quite right in saying that a large number of people from outside have come. And now there is ample evidence to show who those outside people are. Today it is simply astounding that on one hand you have forces who say they are so concerned about Maoists infiltration in this country, on the other hand in Nandigram, where huge caches of arms, landmines, 75 detonators have been found, nobody wants to talk about that.
Karan Thapar: CPM cadres have raped women. The Indian Express is carrying front-page stories for the last three days, houses have been burnt, hundreds have been made homeless and you are not embarrassed by this behaviour?
Brinda Karat: If it is true and it is being verified; and it is not a question of CPM cadres. If any woman in Nandigram has been raped in the last five days, then let me assure that this is a government that will ensure the strictest, most stringent punishment.
Karan Thapar: But at the moment, I am sitting in front of a Politburo member who not even prepared to accept embarrassment at the behaviour of your cadres. How can we believe that your government will react when you won’t express embarrassment?
Brinda Karat: Embarrassment about what? You have to be specific.
Karan Thapar: Of your cadres.
Brinda Karat: If there is any verifiable report…
Karan Thapar: Looting homes, burning homes, raping women, rendering thousands homeless…
Brinda Karat: For goodness sake Karan, let us get things in perspective. The fact of the matter is that there have been houses looted, there have been houses plundered. For the last 11 months, 3,500 people have not been allowed in Nandigram. Why is that? Would you like to ask me that question?
Karan Thapar: That question points to the same issues that I am raising: a government that did not carry out its duties and functions to assure law and order and ensure the safety of people. Let me tell you Sumit Sarkar, a lifelong supporter of the Left, has likened Nandigram to Gujarat. He says, “It has to be condemned in the strongest possible words.”
Your closest supporter says this, and you are not one bit embarrassed.
Brinda Karat: I have a great deal of respect for Sumit as a historian. But he has never been a supporter of the CPI (M). So lets be clear on that. I don’t want to go into individuals.
Karan Thapar: Leave Sumit out of this. Let me then point towards all the other Left supporters: Mrinal Sen, Gautam Ghosh, Aparna Sen, Rituparno Ghosh, Jogen Chaudhury. Sixty thousand people marched in silence through the streets of Kolkata pointing the finger of blame at the CPM and you are not even a little embarrassed?
Brinda Karat: I am not embarrassed. I am deeply concerned that this should have happened.
Karan Thapar: It happened because they are losing faith in your party.
Brinda Karat: As a member of the CPI (M), I am deeply concerned about the fact that there should be such a gap between what is reality and how it is perceived. I would like to stress this that I don’t believe in their poor and our poor. I believe that the people of Nandigram regardless of their political affiliation have every right to live in their houses, to be assured of security and be protected so that they can continue their life in a normal way.
Karan Thapar: Pause for a moment and think what you just said. You said you are concerned about the gap between reality and how it is perceived. Today most people say that in Bengal there is a rift between the CPM on one hand, and the rest of the state on the other. What in effect you are saying is that the CPM is right, everyone else in Bengal in wrong.
Brinda Karat: I am not saying that at all. I respect the work of many of these artists and intellectuals. But I am a bit puzzled. For 11 months when 3,500 poor, schedules caste and agricultural workers were out in the camps, did they accept what Mamata Banerjee said then that this is just drama? Where were they? I want to know that.
Karan Thapar: Even if you are right at pointing towards what I think you are suggesting - the double standards on part of these protestors, does it in anyway justify violence that was unleashed, looting, killing, burning of houses and raping.
Brinda Karat: If there is a single case of rape proved, my party, my government will take the most stringent action unlike those in the BUPC (Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee) who prevented the Women’s Commission from enquiring into the rape of a young girl of 14 and the rape of another woman.
Karan Thapar: I’ll let you mention these rapes in detail. I could counter you be mentioning the details of rapes in The Indian Express.
Brinda Karat: Please Karan, I am the last person to have a debate on rape like this. Unlike what the BUPC and the leaders of the so called Land Defence Committee did when women were raped, we are going to do it.
Karan Thapar: At the moment you are no different because you are not acknowledging the rapes either, you are not acknowledging the complicity of your cadres in them.
Brinda Karat: Please Karan, let me make it absolutely clear. The rape case has been filed by the police, investigation is on, names have been mentioned by the victim and it is being verified. The strongest action is going to be taken.
Karan Thapar: Forgive me, but how is your attitude morally better than the people you are criticising when you own Chief Minister has gone on record to say - “The violence and the killing mean that the BUPC have been paid back in the same coin.” How can your attitude be better when The Indian Express claims that Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has said that what happened in Nandigram is morally and legally justifiable.
Brinda Karat: Don’t keep quoting The Indian Express.
Karan Thapar: That’s Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. He hasn’t denied it. He defended it.
Brinda Karat: What the Chief Minister said, I am not going to be able to comment on that.
Karan Thapar: Why not?
Brinda Karat: I’ll tell you. But what I can comment on is the entire interview. Not just one sentence. And in the interview what the CM has raised three points. One - the violence of 11 months where 3,500 were not allowed to go home.
Karan Thapar: And his conclusion that therefore the BUPC have been paid back in the same point. That means he is justifying the violence in terms of previous violence.
Brinda Karat: Never. I want to make it absolutely clear
Karan Thapar: Are you then embarrassed by the CM’s language? Are you standing by it?
Brinda Karat: I don’t want to say yes or no. I put the sentence in the context of what he said that this is not the way it is being reported. There were 3,500 who were driven to desperation.
Karan Thapar: And now 10,500 driven to desperation in return. So does that make it balanced and acceptable?
Brinda Karat: Those figures are entirely wrong.
Karan Thapar: Your figures are correct, other peoples figures are wrong.
Brinda Karat: No. These are figures which have been verified there by the police.
Karan Thapar: The CPM used to have moral authority on its side. When you took on the BJP in Gujarat, you did so with the morality of the situation in your favour. Today, your CM sounds reminiscent of Narendra Modi when Modi was alleged to have said every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That’s the extent to which the CPM has damaged itself.
Brinda Karat: Well you may think so. You have every right to have that opinion. But what I would like to say is that this (Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee) is the only CM in the country who committed himself to a political process to bring the Opposition round at a time when he made it clear that he is not going to take over land.
Karan Thapar: This CM took nine months to pay compensation to the people killed and injured on March 14. In the running months, he only woke up to it on November 8. You know what the High Court in Kolkata said - what he is offering is derisory. They have demanded that he increase the sums by over a 150 per cent. His actions are perhaps worse than his rhetoric.
Brinda Karat: I don’t agree with that at all because as far as compensation is concerned, the CM made it very clear on the first day itself that the government was committed to giving compensation.
Karan Thapar: Now you are committed to appealing against the HC telling you to pay more.
Brinda Karat: Let my clarify that and I think you would also agree with me. A state in a country where in a particular country where it is declared that the administration is not going to be allowed in, roads are dug up, bridges are broken, when the police go in, they are lynched. And then if the government sends its police forces, the HC says ‘withdraw your police’.
Karan Thapar: What the HC is saying that the shooting of 14 people and the inuring of as many as 16 is totally unconstitutional. The HC is saying that the government must make reparations and increase what you are offering. And what you are saying in response is that you are considering appealing against it. And what happened to taking action against the killers? That hasn’t even happened.
Brinda Karat: It’s confusing when you ask so many questions. What exactly does that HC mean when it says unconstitutional.
Karan Thapar: Against the Constitutional.
Brinda Karat: Exactly. So is it within the Constitution to cut off an entire area in a state from the administration.
Karan Thapar: But the HC wasn’t looking at that picture. The HC was looking at the picture of reparations. They were responding to a specific petition to do with the failure of the government to give compensation. You are raising extraneous issues.
Brinda Karat: I’m not.
Karan Thapar: And you know why you are? Because confusing the matter help defend the CM.
Brinda Karat: You asked the question Constitutional. I am asking a counter question.
Karan Thapar: But killing is unconstitutional.
Brinda Karat: I want to talk about the HC saying it’s unconstitutional.
Karan Thapar: Nine months have passed and no action has been taken against the killers of the 14 people. The Governor complains in the strongest terms, the HC yesterday upbraided the government and has asked the CBI to step in. and you are still not embarrassed.
Brinda Karat: My dear Karan, let me again remind you that without even asking the state government, the HC ordered a CBI enquiry.
Karan Thapar: That’s because the government wasn’t acting.
Brinda Karat: And within 12 hours, the state government acted immediately.
Karan Thapar: But nothing had happened in nine months.
Brinda Karat: Because the CBI is inquiring into it. The government just has to wait for the CBI enquiry.
Karan Thapar: You have made the CBI an excuse for your inaction.
Brinda Karat: Now look at that. Isn’t that absurd.
Karan Thapar: Let’s turn to the predicament of your Chief Minister. I put it to you today, he’s the biggest loser. His reputation is damaged as a Chief Minister, his credibility is damaged as a moral authority and his image in the country is damaged.
Brinda Karat: I don’t agree with that at all.
Karan Thapar: Is that the only defence you are going to put up?
Brinda Karat: I don’t agree with those assertions. This is the only Chief Minister in the country who has tried very hard for a political process with opponents who answer with arms. He is the only CM in the country who has said there will be no land acquisition if the people don’t want it.
Karan Thapar: But people don’t believe him.
Brinda Karat: I don’t believe that. It’s a very motivated political alliance that is doing this. Think about it. From the Maoists, to the BJP to the Congress.
Karan Thapar: People of Nandigram have lost faith in Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee which is why they are willing to be swayed by your opponents.
Brinda Karat: I don’t think so. I think there has been a very strong armed presence in that area which terrorised people and as the days go by you will find more evidence of the truth of what I’m saying.
Karan Thapar: Let me put it this way: Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee was considered, until very recently, a sensitive visionary. Today, he is looked upon as cold and calculating. That’s the extent of his fall.
Brinda Karat: I don’t know these descriptions because you so good at this wonderful, colourful language. As far as we are concerned, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is the leader of this party. He led the party in the elections and he won 3/4 majority. He has the support of the people of Bengal but the government is under attack because it is following alternative policies which are not liked by certain sections.
Karan Thapar: The government is under attack but RSP, CPI and the Forward Bloc say it’s under attack from the CPM. They say and I quote, ‘The CPM alone is responsible.’ You party is the problem. Your CM ambling is the problem.
Brinda Karat: Let me put it this way. As the largest party in the alliance, we are singularly responsible for keeping the party going and even now we are responsible to keep the alliance going and address the issues.
Karan Thapar: The reason for the responsibility is because you are responsible for damaging the alliance. That’s why you have to accept responsibility.
Brinda Karat: There are ups and downs in alliances, Karan. I am confident because we believe in a certain trajectory of development and I believe that the Left Front in West Bengal will continue even though its opponents are really waiting for the day when it will break down.
Karan Thapar: No doubt that the Left Front in West Bengal will continue. Governments limp along till the last dying day because no politician wants to relinquish office. The problem is, for 30 years the CPM was considered invincible. Now you have inflicted upon yourself moral defeat of unimaginable proportions and if you won’t even accept the enormity of what you have done, the situation is a lot worse than it seems.
Brinda Karat: We are the one party that has the internal process of analysing, criticizing and pin pointing where our weaknesses have been.
Karan Thapar: To recover now, you have to believe in resurrection.
Brinda Karat: I don’t know about these analogies. Resurrection means if you are dead and buried.
Karan Thapar: You are pretty close to that pitiable state, that’s what I am saying.
Brinda Karat: I am sorry, Karan, let me tell you, that even every recently, in the by-elections that were held, including in the neighbouring area, we won a very convincing majority in spite of the fact that there was a big ganging up against us.
Karan Thapar: The situation has changed in the last two weeks. You know that.
Brinda Karat: I’m sorry, Karan, because you are highly mistaken. In the last few weeks more and more people are understanding the tinder box that Nandigram has become.
Karan Thapar: People are now comparing Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to Narendra Modi. Don’t you regret the fact that the moral authority, which was the CPM’s strongest point, is damaged?
Brinda Karat: West Bengal is the one state where minorities can live in security.
Karan Thapar: Oh, ask that of the people of Nandigram and see what answer you get.
Brinda Karat: Yes, we will get that answer.
Karan Thapar: You’ve got Muslims barricading the streets of Kolkata in defiance of the government because they believe that minorities have suffered.
Brinda Karat: Please remember that among the 3,500 people there were a large number of poor Muslims.
Karan Thapar: Exactly, so no matter who did it, Muslims have suffered.
Brinda Karat: As a West Bengal government, committed to its secular position, we will ensure the protection of the poor, minorities and all those who have been affected by developments in Nandigram since January. The government is going to take responsibility and I can assure you of that.
Karan Thapar: I hope the people of Nandigram not just listening but want to believe you. Mrs Karat, it was a pleasure speaking to you.
__._,_.___

Nandigram matter of concern, not shame!

Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: alashchandrabiswas@gmail.com">palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com

Below is a hard-hitting interview between IBN's Karan Thapar and Brinda Karat, CPI(M)'s Indian politburo member, on the Nandigram massacres.

I wish similar courage was shown by U.S. journalists interviewing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice or Hillary Clinton on Iraq. Regardless of the merits of the two parties on the Nandigram interview, Thapar's questions are bold and incisive, unlike the inane conversations we hear on NBC, PBS or CNN.

-Partha
http://www.geocitie s.com/chokmoki

__________

"Nandigram matter of concern, not shame"

IBNlive.com
Sunday November 18, 09:40 PM

The CPI-M’s image of being a humanist party is in ruins after its workers run amok in Nandigram, West Bengal, and allegedly attacked and murdered opponents. How does the party defend itself? Brinda Karat was asked on Devil's Advocate

Karan Thapar: How embarrassed are you by the behaviour of your party cadres in Nandigram?

Brinda Karat: It is a matter of concern that the way Nandigram has been reported, an image has been created about the CPM cadre. The fact of the matter is that we have lost 28 of our cadres. So it’s really not the question of embarrassment. It is a question of deep concern.

Karan Thapar: You are expressing concern at the way it is reported. Let me instead quote to you the Governor. He calls the behaviour of your cadre “totally unlawful and unacceptable” . Ministers in your own government have said that it is now difficult to show our face to the public. Your own allies say that the CPM alone is responsible. And instead you are not embarrassed, but you are blaming the Press for the way it is reported.

Brinda Karat: I would say that there has been a one-sided reporting on Nandigram. And it is really for that reason that I have said I am extremely concerned.

Karan Thapar: But aren’t you now concerned about your cadre as well reporting apart?

Brinda Karat: If you can give me specific instances of what you are referring to, then I could certainly respond to it. But my cadre has been at the receiving end of it for 11 months.

Karan Thapar: Telegraph newspaper, November 7: “Nearly 10,000 villagers fled as CPM cadres started setting one house after another on fire.”

“A large number of armed person form outside the district have forced themselves upon the people of Nandigram,” said the Governor.

Brinda Karat: The Governor is quite right in saying that a large number of people from outside have come. And now there is ample evidence to show who those outside people are. Today it is simply astounding that on one hand you have forces who say they are so concerned about Maoists infiltration in this country, on the other hand in Nandigram, where huge caches of arms, landmines, 75 detonators have been found, nobody wants to talk about that.

Karan Thapar: CPM cadres have raped women. The Indian Express is carrying front-page stories for the last three days, houses have been burnt, hundreds have been made homeless and you are not embarrassed by this behaviour?

Brinda Karat: If it is true and it is being verified; and it is not a question of CPM cadres. If any woman in Nandigram has been raped in the last five days, then let me assure that this is a government that will ensure the strictest, most stringent punishment.

Karan Thapar: But at the moment, I am sitting in front of a Politburo member who not even prepared to accept embarrassment at the behaviour of your cadres. How can we believe that your government will react when you won’t express embarrassment?

Brinda Karat: Embarrassment about what? You have to be specific.

Karan Thapar: Of your cadres.

Brinda Karat: If there is any verifiable report…

Karan Thapar: Looting homes, burning homes, raping women, rendering thousands homeless…

Brinda Karat: For goodness sake Karan, let us get things in perspective. The fact of the matter is that there have been houses looted, there have been houses plundered. For the last 11 months, 3,500 people have not been allowed in Nandigram. Why is that? Would you like to ask me that question?

Karan Thapar: That question points to the same issues that I am raising: a government that did not carry out its duties and functions to assure law and order and ensure the safety of people. Let me tell you Sumit Sarkar, a lifelong supporter of the Left, has likened Nandigram to Gujarat. He says, “It has to be condemned in the strongest possible words.”
Your closest supporter says this, and you are not one bit embarrassed.

Brinda Karat: I have a great deal of respect for Sumit as a historian. But he has never been a supporter of the CPI (M). So lets be clear on that. I don’t want to go into individuals.

Karan Thapar: Leave Sumit out of this. Let me then point towards all the other Left supporters: Mrinal Sen, Gautam Ghosh, Aparna Sen, Rituparno Ghosh, Jogen Chaudhury. Sixty thousand people marched in silence through the streets of Kolkata pointing the finger of blame at the CPM and you are not even a little embarrassed?

Brinda Karat: I am not embarrassed. I am deeply concerned that this should have happened.

Karan Thapar: It happened because they are losing faith in your party.

Brinda Karat: As a member of the CPI (M), I am deeply concerned about the fact that there should be such a gap between what is reality and how it is perceived. I would like to stress this that I don’t believe in their poor and our poor. I believe that the people of Nandigram regardless of their political affiliation have every right to live in their houses, to be assured of security and be protected so that they can continue their life in a normal way.

Karan Thapar: Pause for a moment and think what you just said. You said you are concerned about the gap between reality and how it is perceived. Today most people say that in Bengal there is a rift between the CPM on one hand, and the rest of the state on the other. What in effect you are saying is that the CPM is right, everyone else in Bengal in wrong.

Brinda Karat: I am not saying that at all. I respect the work of many of these artists and intellectuals. But I am a bit puzzled. For 11 months when 3,500 poor, schedules caste and agricultural workers were out in the camps, did they accept what Mamata Banerjee said then that this is just drama? Where were they? I want to know that.

Karan Thapar: Even if you are right at pointing towards what I think you are suggesting - the double standards on part of these protestors, does it in anyway justify violence that was unleashed, looting, killing, burning of houses and raping.

Brinda Karat: If there is a single case of rape proved, my party, my government will take the most stringent action unlike those in the BUPC (Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee) who prevented the Women’s Commission from enquiring into the rape of a young girl of 14 and the rape of another woman.

Karan Thapar: I’ll let you mention these rapes in detail. I could counter you be mentioning the details of rapes in The Indian Express.

Brinda Karat: Please Karan, I am the last person to have a debate on rape like this. Unlike what the BUPC and the leaders of the so called Land Defence Committee did when women were raped, we are going to do it.

Karan Thapar: At the moment you are no different because you are not acknowledging the rapes either, you are not acknowledging the complicity of your cadres in them.

Brinda Karat: Please Karan, let me make it absolutely clear. The rape case has been filed by the police, investigation is on, names have been mentioned by the victim and it is being verified. The strongest action is going to be taken.

Karan Thapar: Forgive me, but how is your attitude morally better than the people you are criticising when you own Chief Minister has gone on record to say - “The violence and the killing mean that the BUPC have been paid back in the same coin.” How can your attitude be better when The Indian Express claims that Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has said that what happened in Nandigram is morally and legally justifiable.

Brinda Karat: Don’t keep quoting The Indian Express.

Karan Thapar: That’s Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. He hasn’t denied it. He defended it.

Brinda Karat: What the Chief Minister said, I am not going to be able to comment on that.

Karan Thapar: Why not?

Brinda Karat: I’ll tell you. But what I can comment on is the entire interview. Not just one sentence. And in the interview what the CM has raised three points. One - the violence of 11 months where 3,500 were not allowed to go home.

Karan Thapar: And his conclusion that therefore the BUPC have been paid back in the same point. That means he is justifying the violence in terms of previous violence.

Brinda Karat: Never. I want to make it absolutely clear

Karan Thapar: Are you then embarrassed by the CM’s language? Are you standing by it?

Brinda Karat: I don’t want to say yes or no. I put the sentence in the context of what he said that this is not the way it is being reported. There were 3,500 who were driven to desperation.

Karan Thapar: And now 10,500 driven to desperation in return. So does that make it balanced and acceptable?

Brinda Karat: Those figures are entirely wrong.

Karan Thapar: Your figures are correct, other peoples figures are wrong.

Brinda Karat: No. These are figures which have been verified there by the police.

Karan Thapar: The CPM used to have moral authority on its side. When you took on the BJP in Gujarat, you did so with the morality of the situation in your favour. Today, your CM sounds reminiscent of Narendra Modi when Modi was alleged to have said every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That’s the extent to which the CPM has damaged itself.

Brinda Karat: Well you may think so. You have every right to have that opinion. But what I would like to say is that this (Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee) is the only CM in the country who committed himself to a political process to bring the Opposition round at a time when he made it clear that he is not going to take over land.

Karan Thapar: This CM took nine months to pay compensation to the people killed and injured on March 14. In the running months, he only woke up to it on November 8. You know what the High Court in Kolkata said - what he is offering is derisory. They have demanded that he increase the sums by over a 150 per cent. His actions are perhaps worse than his rhetoric.

Brinda Karat: I don’t agree with that at all because as far as compensation is concerned, the CM made it very clear on the first day itself that the government was committed to giving compensation.

Karan Thapar: Now you are committed to appealing against the HC telling you to pay more.

Brinda Karat: Let my clarify that and I think you would also agree with me. A state in a country where in a particular country where it is declared that the administration is not going to be allowed in, roads are dug up, bridges are broken, when the police go in, they are lynched. And then if the government sends its police forces, the HC says ‘withdraw your police’.

Karan Thapar: What the HC is saying that the shooting of 14 people and the inuring of as many as 16 is totally unconstitutional. The HC is saying that the government must make reparations and increase what you are offering. And what you are saying in response is that you are considering appealing against it. And what happened to taking action against the killers? That hasn’t even happened.

Brinda Karat: It’s confusing when you ask so many questions. What exactly does that HC mean when it says unconstitutional.

Karan Thapar: Against the Constitutional.

Brinda Karat: Exactly. So is it within the Constitution to cut off an entire area in a state from the administration.

Karan Thapar: But the HC wasn’t looking at that picture. The HC was looking at the picture of reparations. They were responding to a specific petition to do with the failure of the government to give compensation. You are raising extraneous issues.

Brinda Karat: I’m not.

Karan Thapar: And you know why you are? Because confusing the matter help defend the CM.

Brinda Karat: You asked the question Constitutional. I am asking a counter question.

Karan Thapar: But killing is unconstitutional.

Brinda Karat: I want to talk about the HC saying it’s unconstitutional.

Karan Thapar: Nine months have passed and no action has been taken against the killers of the 14 people. The Governor complains in the strongest terms, the HC yesterday upbraided the government and has asked the CBI to step in. and you are still not embarrassed.

Brinda Karat: My dear Karan, let me again remind you that without even asking the state government, the HC ordered a CBI enquiry.

Karan Thapar: That’s because the government wasn’t acting.

Brinda Karat: And within 12 hours, the state government acted immediately.

Karan Thapar: But nothing had happened in nine months.

Brinda Karat: Because the CBI is inquiring into it. The government just has to wait for the CBI enquiry.

Karan Thapar: You have made the CBI an excuse for your inaction.

Brinda Karat: Now look at that. Isn’t that absurd.

Karan Thapar: Let’s turn to the predicament of your Chief Minister. I put it to you today, he’s the biggest loser. His reputation is damaged as a Chief Minister, his credibility is damaged as a moral authority and his image in the country is damaged.

Brinda Karat: I don’t agree with that at all.

Karan Thapar: Is that the only defence you are going to put up?

Brinda Karat: I don’t agree with those assertions. This is the only Chief Minister in the country who has tried very hard for a political process with opponents who answer with arms. He is the only CM in the country who has said there will be no land acquisition if the people don’t want it.

Karan Thapar: But people don’t believe him.

Brinda Karat: I don’t believe that. It’s a very motivated political alliance that is doing this. Think about it. From the Maoists, to the BJP to the Congress.

Karan Thapar: People of Nandigram have lost faith in Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee which is why they are willing to be swayed by your opponents.

Brinda Karat: I don’t think so. I think there has been a very strong armed presence in that area which terrorised people and as the days go by you will find more evidence of the truth of what I’m saying.

Karan Thapar: Let me put it this way: Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee was considered, until very recently, a sensitive visionary. Today, he is looked upon as cold and calculating. That’s the extent of his fall.

Brinda Karat: I don’t know these descriptions because you so good at this wonderful, colourful language. As far as we are concerned, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is the leader of this party. He led the party in the elections and he won 3/4 majority. He has the support of the people of Bengal but the government is under attack because it is following alternative policies which are not liked by certain sections.

Karan Thapar: The government is under attack but RSP, CPI and the Forward Bloc say it’s under attack from the CPM. They say and I quote, ‘The CPM alone is responsible.’ You party is the problem. Your CM ambling is the problem.

Brinda Karat: Let me put it this way. As the largest party in the alliance, we are singularly responsible for keeping the party going and even now we are responsible to keep the alliance going and address the issues.

Karan Thapar: The reason for the responsibility is because you are responsible for damaging the alliance. That’s why you have to accept responsibility.

Brinda Karat: There are ups and downs in alliances, Karan. I am confident because we believe in a certain trajectory of development and I believe that the Left Front in West Bengal will continue even though its opponents are really waiting for the day when it will break down.

Karan Thapar: No doubt that the Left Front in West Bengal will continue. Governments limp along till the last dying day because no politician wants to relinquish office. The problem is, for 30 years the CPM was considered invincible. Now you have inflicted upon yourself moral defeat of unimaginable proportions and if you won’t even accept the enormity of what you have done, the situation is a lot worse than it seems.

Brinda Karat: We are the one party that has the internal process of analysing, criticizing and pin pointing where our weaknesses have been.

Karan Thapar: To recover now, you have to believe in resurrection.

Brinda Karat: I don’t know about these analogies. Resurrection means if you are dead and buried.

Karan Thapar: You are pretty close to that pitiable state, that’s what I am saying.

Brinda Karat: I am sorry, Karan, let me tell you, that even every recently, in the by-elections that were held, including in the neighbouring area, we won a very convincing majority in spite of the fact that there was a big ganging up against us.

Karan Thapar: The situation has changed in the last two weeks. You know that.

Brinda Karat: I’m sorry, Karan, because you are highly mistaken. In the last few weeks more and more people are understanding the tinder box that Nandigram has become.

Karan Thapar: People are now comparing Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to Narendra Modi. Don’t you regret the fact that the moral authority, which was the CPM’s strongest point, is damaged?

Brinda Karat: West Bengal is the one state where minorities can live in security.

Karan Thapar: Oh, ask that of the people of Nandigram and see what answer you get.

Brinda Karat: Yes, we will get that answer.

Karan Thapar: You’ve got Muslims barricading the streets of Kolkata in defiance of the government because they believe that minorities have suffered.

Brinda Karat: Please remember that among the 3,500 people there were a large number of poor Muslims.

Karan Thapar: Exactly, so no matter who did it, Muslims have suffered.

Brinda Karat: As a West Bengal government, committed to its secular position, we will ensure the protection of the poor, minorities and all those who have been affected by developments in Nandigram since January. The government is going to take responsibility and I can assure you of that.

Karan Thapar: I hope the people of Nandigram not just listening but want to believe you. Mrs Karat, it was a pleasure speaking to you.

__._,_.___

New terrorism power plans unveiled
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
New terrorism power plans unveiled
By Michael Holden Reuters - 1 hour 47 minutes agoLONDON (Reuters) - The government unveiled plans on Thursday for controversial new powers to allow police to hold terrorism suspects for up to 42 days without charge -- but the compromise deal failed to appease critics.
(Advertisement)
Since taking over from Tony Blair in June, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said police powers need to be extended to allow them to deal with complex terrorism investigations that involve multiple plots and many countries.
But he has had to backtrack from simply raising the detention limit, in the face of mounting opposition not just from political opponents and civil rights groups, but from senior legal figures and within his own Labour Party.
Instead, the new and complicated proposals would allow the government to use temporary measures only in extreme situations, permitting detectives to quiz suspects for a maximum of 42 days -- up from the current 28-day cut-off.
These additional powers, which would be subject to parliamentary approval, would expire after two months.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the measures were needed to address an increasing "serious and sustained threat".
The security services have said they are monitoring thousands of individuals that pose a risk and so far this year 42 people have been convicted of terrorism offences.
But Smith said the new powers would only be used in exceptional circumstances.
"It is not something we are expecting to become mundane or everyday," she told reporters, saying police and the independent reviewer of government terrorism laws back their plans.
The current limit is itself a compromise deal agreed two years ago after Blair suffered his first defeat in the House of Commons when Labour MPs rebelled against plans for a 90-day limit. Brown is likely to face similar problems when the proposals go before parliament next year.
Ministers concede that no case has so far required more time than the current limit but say detectives were pushed to the brink over the suspected plot to blow up transatlantic airliners in August last year.
Two suspects were charged on the 28th day of their detention. But civil rights groups argue 28 days is already much longer than in any other comparable democracy.
Many senior officials, including the former Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, remain unconvinced and both major opposition parties are fierce opponents, saying no evidence has been produced for the extension.
The announcement has also angered Islamic groups who fear new powers will alienate many of the country's 1.7 million Muslims.
"This government has increased the detention from 7 days to 28 days without any evidence and we are certainly on the road to a police state," the mainstream Ramadhan Foundation said in a statement.
(Editing by Steve Addison)
Suspended Sentence For Lyrical Terrorist Samina Malik
By Sky News SkyNews - 1 hour 23 minutes agoA woman who called herself the "lyrical terrorist" and wrote a poem called How To Behead has been spared a jail sentence.
(Advertisement)
Samina Mali, 23, was given a nine-month suspended jail sentence when she appeared at the Old Bailey.
The former Heathrow airport worker was the first woman to be convicted under new terrorism legislation.
Malik, described as an unlikely but committed Islamic extremist, was last month convicted by an Old Bailey jury of a charge under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Working at WH Smith at Heathrow, she wrote on the back of a till receipt: "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom."
Lengthy ramblings about firing rocket launchers and "taking part in the blessed forgotten sacred death of Jihad" were found when police searched her home in Southall, west London.
The court heard that Malik visited a website linked to jailed cleric Abu Hamza, stored material about weapons, and belonged to a social networking website called Hi-5, describing her interests as "helping the mujaheddin in any way I can".
Under favourite TV shows, she listed: "Watching videos by my Muslim brothers in Iraq, yep the beheading ones, watching video messages by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri and other videos which show massacres of the kaffirs."
But Malik told the jury she only adopted her "lyrical terrorist" nickname because she thought it was "cool" and insisted: "I am not a terrorist."
Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, told The Times: "Young people may well have some silly thoughts. That should not be criminalised. It is their actions that we should be concerned about."
Malik, who had tears in her eyes as she left the dock, was told her sentence was suspended for 18 months on condition that she be supervised for the whole period and undertake unpaid work.
The judge said her crime was on the "margins" of the offence of which she was found guilty, adding that she was of "good character" and from a "supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you are in".

[MuktoChinta] Taslima Nasreen controversy
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Mr. Enayet,
Above editorial and letters published in the Daily New Age should
respond your mail, at least!

Thanks and regards.

Gopal Sengupta
Canada

Editorial
Govt should clarify its
position on Taslima
Taslima Nasreen, one of Bangladesh’s most controversial writers, has
reportedly been on the run in India after extremist Muslims of West
Bengal demanded her expulsion from their country. She initially left
Bangladesh in 1994 after huge street protests by Islamist extremists who
decried her writings as blasphemous and demanded that she be punished for
hurting religious sentiments. Originally making her way to India, she
then spent a few years in different Western countries until she chose a
couple of years back to return to the Indian state of West Bengal – a
place she describes as ‘closest to what I know as home’.
However, as it appears from the recent protests against her in
Kolkata, the capital of the communist-run state, the government of the
officially proclaimed secular India has been exposed to difficulties as
regards providing her with a safe home. ‘Mentally distressed’, she is
now reportedly hiding at a government residence in New Delhi under tight
security. The union cabinet of India has reportedly reached a
consensus to ensure her safety, while in parliament the Communist Party of
India argued for granting her Indian citizenship and the Bhartiya Janata
Party demanded that Taslima be granted permanent visa and asylum in the
country. But we wonder what the government of Bangladesh, of which
Taslima is a citizen by birth, is going to do about the issue. Otherwise
critical of the past administrations of Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, the
government of Fakhruddin Ahmed in this case has so far followed in the
footsteps of its predecessors: maintaining complete silence – an
opportunist position indeed – about an issue causing enormous
embarrassment to the country across the world.
Taslima, an overtly atheist writer, proclaims herself to be a
‘humanist’, while boldly expressing her views about religions,
particularly from the perspectives of women’s rights, which many a faithful
does not feel comfortable with. We believe many of her interpretations of
religious propositions seriously lack sound political, philosophical
and historical understanding of the religious texts concerned, while we
have doubts about her contributions in advancing the feminist cause of
the women she is apparently writing for, but we have no doubt about her
democratic right, the inalienable right that is, to put forward her
views on issues of public importance. In this regard, we also believe that
it is the responsibility of a government in a democratic dispensation
to protect the rights of every citizen in expressing their views – a
responsibility the subsequent governments of Khaleda Zia and Sheikh
Hasina failed to discharge, particularly in the case of Taslima Nasreen.
The non-partisan incumbents of the day, who made a pledge to us to
work to improve on whatever democratic norms that political governments
had practiced, should come forward to pave the way for Taslima to
return home safely and provide adequate security to her here in Bangladesh.
Most importantly, the government should make its position clear to the
public, at home and abroad, on whether there is any official bar on her
return to Bangladesh in the first place and whether the government is
ready to provide her with adequate security if she returns home. If the
government fails to do so, it will fail us, the citizens of the
country, in our attempts to tell the world that we are not a moribund society
incapable of accommodating dissenting views. This is a real test for a
government, apparently comprising some highly educated individuals, in
proving that they are capable of standing up to the basic democratic
spirit of accommodating opposing views, particularly when they are
tolerating many an obscurantist interpretation of religion by the
obscurantist Islamists who oppose Taslima’s right to put forward her
interpretations of religion/s.

Taslima Nasreen controversy
I am perplexed that the Islamic organisations are so sensitive and
swift in taking action against any religious intruder who hurts Islamic
ideology. Ironically, they are not sensitive at all to other religions.
Are Indians bending their knees to these organisations who issue fatwas?
I think the government should handle these organisations with a firm
hand. Otherwise these organisations will start ruining India.
Isn’t India a secular democracy? Why are the Indians continuously
being dictated by some rigid Islamic fundamentalists? There is
certainly a law in the country and all should abide those. If the Indian
government has given Taslima Nasreen the permission to stay there, what’s
their problem?
I fail to understand why a government (provincial or central) lets
itself be blackmailed by any institution or persons, irrespective of
their religions or affiliations. The Indians are lucky to have a
constitution that protects freedom of speech. This right must be protected
otherwise India may end up with conditions like that in Pakistan.
Gopal Sengupta
Canada

* * *
I believe, Taslima Nasreen should be allowed to come back to
Bangladesh and face her trial. If any person can prove that she hurt the
feelings of any community and caused distress, she can be convicted by law
of the land. She should also be prepared to spend a few months behind
bars, if she gets convicted. Then it will be the responsibility of the
state to ensure her safety and security after the trial, each and every
citizen of Bangladesh deserves that sort of safety and security from the
state. Let us take it as a test case for our independent judiciary. I
believe we are matured enough to clean up our messes ourselves. We
cannot spend ages as being victims of blackmails of some fundamentalist
circles forever.
MH Khan
On e-mail

Rs 761 cr spent, but Ganga no cleaner
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: alashchandrabiswas@gmail.com">palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com
Omaxe bid for dvlpmt of Ganga Expressway project
Moneycontrol.com - 3 hours ago
Omaxe in consortium with GVK constructions and Nagarjuna construction company will bid for the 8-lane Ganga Expressway project from Greater Noida to Ghazipur-Ballia on Public Private Partnership model.
Omaxe-GVK-NCC to bid for Ganga Expressway Business Standard
REL, DLF bid for Rs 30000 cr Ganga Expressway Times of India
Rs 761 cr spent, but Ganga no cleaner
New Delhi: Eleven committees have been constituted and Rs 1,000 crore sanctioned for the Ganga Action Plan, but the river remains polluted.
Annoyed over this and the unexplained utilisation of the money allocated for cleaning Ganga, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Planning Commission not to permit any further release of funds without verifying the expenditure incurred for its implementation.
A bench comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice RV Raveendran asked the member (Water Resource), Planning Commission, to look into the utilisation certificate submitted by the state governments who are concerned with the project. It further directed that the funds should not be released without obtaining the utilisation certificate from the states.
It asked Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand to place before the Ministry of Environment and Forest the utilisation certificate of funds, which they had to do as per its order. Two other states — West Bengal and Uttarakhand — which are among the five states covered under the plan, have already submitted the utilisation certificate of the funds.
The bench was visibly upset when it noted that out of the Rs 949 crore allocated by the Centre, around Rs 761 crore has been utilised, while the water quality of the river has deteriorated.
Advocate Kishan Mahajan, who is assisting the court, informed it that the industrial pollution has gone unchecked on the 2,500 km stretch of river Ganga, which passes through 29 major cities, 23 small cities and 48 towns.
Mahajan submitted his report stating that the Centre has spent funds in constituting seven committees while four committees were formed at the state leve.
Kerala plans new M’periyar dam with people's money
Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan Thursday strongly criticised the central government for its indecision over the construction of a new dam at Mullaperiyar.
"If needed we will go to the people of Kerala and ask them to contribute money to build a new dam at Mullaperiyar," Achuthanandan told reporters here after a cabinet meeting.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been involved in a legal battle and a war of words over the 111-year-old Mullaperiyar dam, located in Idukki district. The recent heavy rains in the region had brought the dam’s water level near the danger mark.
Achuthanandan added that he had informed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the seriousness of the issue as the dam posed a grave threat to nearly 3.5 million people in five districts.
"I told him not to believe the wrong statements of Tamil Nadu regarding the safety of the existing dam. He asked me if I would be present for the NDC (National Development Council) meet later this month."
"May be in between the NDC a meeting of both the chief minister's would be called. I in turn asked him if he would be present if such a meeting is arranged," said Achuthanandan.
The dam was built under an agreement signed in 1886 between the Maharaja of Travancore and the British administration of the Madras presidency.
While Kerala wants the reservoir water to remain at 132 feet, saying the dam is old and unsafe, Tamil Nadu wants the height to be increased to 142 feet.
The Kerala government last month had cleared the construction of a new dam after taking into account safety aspects, but Tamil Nadu government strongly opposes any such move.
Source: IANS

ZIONISTS Upset by Honest Analysis of Iran - 3 Stories
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: alashchandrabiswas@gmail.com">palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com
Rice urges Russia to maintain pressure on Iran
Reuters - 1 hour ago
By Sue Pleming BRUSSELS (Reuters) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged a skeptical Russia on Thursday to help maintain pressure on Iran, despite the release of a US report which found Tehran halted its atomic weapons program in 2003.
US Says Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran New York Times
Iran and US Jockey for Position Wall Street Journal
From:"Useful Idiot"
DATA Mine CANARY News Service
============ ========= =
"Sophie, If you make a big deal out of this
You will get hurt" ~Tony (Starts at 1:35 / 9:44)
PROOF: (7:38) WIill BLOW your Mind
FIXED Republican Straw Poll (at Fla. Debate)
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=W8wjJieSib0
============ ========= =
http://www.mcclatch ydc.com/staff/ dion_nissenbaum/ story/22534. html
Israel furious at US findings on Iran
"On Tuesday morning, Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper
called the U.S. findings 'a blow below the belt.'
An analysis in the competing Haaretz newspaper
suggested that Israel might come to be viewed
as a 'panic-stricken rabbit' and said that the U.S.
intelligence estimate established 'a new, dramatic reality:
The military option, American or Israeli,
is off the table, indefinitely. '"
________
By Dion Nissenbaum,
McClatchy Newspapers
Tue Dec 4, 1:29 PM ET
JERUSALEM

US to expand ties with India, deal or no deal
Nuke deal will enhance country's energy security: Pranab
[Bahujan-forum] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Sense of the House
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
Nuke deal will enhance country's energy security: Pranab
New Delhi: The civil nuclear agreement between India and the US will help create a substantial additional power generating capacity in the country, the Rajya Sabha was informed today.
In a written reply, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the Integrated Energy Policy-2006, which sets a target of 20,000 MW of nuclear power generation by 2020, could double with international cooperation.
Regarding the financial gains the country would have from the nuclear accord, the Minister said the energy from this non-conventional source would contribute in the growth of vital sectors, including industry and agriculture.
"It is critical that India's current GDP growth rate of 8 to 10 percent per annum is maintained in order to achieve the objective of eradication of poverty.
"For this, it is necessary to explore and exploit all sources of energy, and the inclusion of nuclear energy will help in meeting India's energy targets and contribute to growth in vital sectors, including industry and agriculture," he said.
To another question, Mukherjee said an energy security unit had been established under the MEA to enhance the country's energy security by promoting cooperation with other countries.
US to expand ties with India, deal or no deal
Washington: The US says with India emerging as an increasingly important player on the world stage, it's going to continue to expand its relations with New Delhi regardless of the outcome of their nuclear deal.
Washington would very much like to see the India-US nuclear deal move forward and finalised, but it does understand that the Indian Government needs to work though its own political process. But it was "ready and able to move forward whenever they would like us to," the State Department said Wednesday.
"...and we fully expect that, regardless of the outcome or the timing of this agreement, that we are going to continue to expand our relations with India, because it is an increasingly important player on the world's stage," he said.
"It's a country with which we have much in common and for too long, weren't working with in the way we are now," Casey noted. "So we want to make sure that not only we see this nuclear agreement move forward, but that more importantly our broader relations with India continue to develop and grow."
"We certainly want to see this agreement move forward. We hope it will," he said. "But ultimately, in terms of the decisions within the Indian political system, we respect the needs and the rights of their political leaders to work this through themselves."
"But we're ready and able to move forward whenever they would like us to," Casey said adding he was not aware of any recent contacts between the Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and senior Indian officials on the nuclear deal.
The US "would very much like to see this agreement move forward and be finalised," the spokesman said as "We continue to believe it's something that's in the best interests of the United States, of India, and of the broader international community in efforts to inhibit the proliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons."
"So we certainly hope that it does move forward and does go through, Casey said noting that Washington's point man on the deal, Under Secretary for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, had made this point before too.
Burns on his part said at a media roundtable in Singapore Monday that he did not foresee the Implementing 123 agreement "being re-opened, by either side."
"That Agreement is finished, it's done, it's completed, it just stands to be approved finally by both governments," he said according to the transcript of the interaction posted on the State Department website.
"I think with goodwill and hard work, it will be. But I do not foresee it being re-opened, by either side. Not by the United States, and I don't think by India either," he added.
"We are confident that this deal should go forward; of course, we now need to wait for the Indian government to make a final decision on putting the safeguards agreement forward," Burns said outlining the steps to follow.
"And then of course, the step after that will be the Nuclear Suppliers Group, to convince the 45 members to act by consensus to support international change, to treat India in a more fair and effective manner.
"Then there will be a final vote in the US Congress, we hope at the very beginning of 2008. And then this deal will be finished," Burns said.
'Brahmos is one of the best in the world'
Thiruvanathapuram: With the success of supersonic Brahmos missiles, scientists are now planning to develop the hypersonic Brahmos-2 version, a top scientist said today.
"Production of Brahmos-1 has started and our objective is to produce multiple number of these missiles for the Army and Navy," Brahmos Aerospace Chief Executive Officer and DRDO Chief Controller A Sivathanu Pillai said today.
"Brahmos is one of the best missiles in the world and we have exclusive brand for the product," he said, delivering the "Prof Satish Dhawan Memorial Lecture" organised in connection with the seminar on National Aerospace Manufacturing here.
The role of the country's industry in space programmes was crucial and vital. For the production of Brahmos, he said an MOU had been signed with 20 companies and arrangements made with 150 industries for the purchase of various components.
Developing Smart Unmanned Combat Supersonic Stealth Aircraft, Reusable missiles and Hypersonic Brahmos were some of the future programmes, he said.
The Brahmos missile, with a maximum range of 290 km, can be launched from submarines, naval vessels, aircraft and land and is a joint venture of DRDO and a Russian defence organisation.
It is rather interesting to note that while at the end of the debate in the lower house of the Indian parliament, which actually counts, only the opposition led by the BJP had staged a walk-out in protest against going ahead with the 'deal' by the GoI; at the end of the subsequent debate in the upper house the CPIM-led Left also joined the opposition in walking out.
The BJP's opposition was however visibly much more acrimonious marked by bitter personal clashes between the Prime Minister and Yashwant Sinha, the former External Affairs Minister, in the upper house. (Yashwant Sinha categorically accused the Prime Minister of wilting under American pressure and thereby not signing the deal with Russia for another four reactors for Koodankulam. The Prime Minister strongly reacted asserting that no such deal is possible till the NSG makes necessary amendment in its rules, which is expected to come only at the end of the ongoing process.) Another leading Congress speaker, a senior minister Kapil Sibal, made repeated digs at a star performer of the BJP, Arun Shourie.
The majority of the parliament as of now is clearly against the 'deal'.
But as had already been pointed out, the CPIM has apparently clinched a deal over the 'deal', so while they'd keep making proforma, i.e. harmless, protests; they may not do anything to rock the boat as they had repeatedly threatened earlier.
Unless of course the deal over the 'deal' itself comes unstuck.
But the whole process is understandably very much restricting the elbow room for the GoI at the IAEA and making it extremely difficult to settle for anything less than a guarantee for perpetual supply of fuel - perhaps by making inspection itself non-perpetual and linked to flow of fuel supply, and permission for building up "strategic reserves" of fuel for the "civilian" reactors. (The IAEA, an inspection agency, does not supply fuel, the members of the NSG do.)
The External Affairs Minister had earlier in the lower house promised that he would report back to the parliament after the terms of the agreement are finalised with the IAEA. His contention was that only
then the "sense of the House" would make any sense. It is too premature at the moment.
So things on the Indian domestic turf promise to be quite engaging.
Sukla
Sitaram Yechury's Rajya Sabha Speech On INDO-US Nuclear Deal
New Delhi, December 5: Following is the full text of Comrade Sitaram Yechury's speech on Short Duration Discussion On INDO-US Nuclear Deal.
I WOULD only like to recapitulate very briefly that in the first debate that we have had here, the prime minister was kind enough to accept the nine assurances that we sought from him and, at that stage, I remember I had stated that we would be willing to accept those as the sense of the House. At that time, the Hyde Act was not passed by the US Congress. Subsequently, when the Hyde Act was passed, we had another debate in December and in the conclusion of that debate the prime minister had categorically assured that (a) they would come back to the House before the 123 agreement was finalised or frozen, and (b) none of the assurances that were made would be violated and the government would stand by all the assurances that had been given. But, unfortunately, the assurances the prime minister had given, at least on three counts, we think, have been violated in the 123 agreement text. I would come to that subsequently. But, since they have been violated, I would only urge upon the government not to proceed on this deal not only because of our opposition or the opposition from the other sections of this House but also because it is in violation of the prime minister's own assurances to the House, which I hold as the most sacrosanct and I do not think that those can be violated. Therefore, we urge the government not to proceed further on this deal.
Before I come to the content of why I am making this assertion that the government should not proceed, I would also touch upon the fact that much has already been said and stated that our opposition to this deal stems from our ideological perception of being anti-American. I would like to set the record straight. It is not that we are anti-American. In fact, on the contrary, we are not anti-American people; but, I think, we are pro-American people because 61 per cent of the American people, in the latest opinion poll, have said that they do not endorse and they are not with the Bush Administration's or the present government's policies in the USA. So, we are with the American people and not with the Administration and we are anti-American imperialism and not anti-American or anti-American people.
Also, I would like to clarify that much is also made out that our opposition stems from an extra-territorial loyalty. I have gone on record in this House, it is there in the proceedings, that we take our decisions and our positions purely and entirely on the basis of what we perceive as India's national interest. And it is on that basis we are saying that this deal is not in the interest of India. I would come to the details of why I am saying so a little later. But, this is not on any so-called extra-territorial loyalty. We have stated very clearly that even if China were to endorse this deal, we would still continue to oppose this deal because we think this is not in India's interest and, therefore, I want to make this clear again before I come down to the actual details of why we are opposing this deal.
First, let us take up the pretext. What we have been told is that this deal is absolutely essential for India's energy security. If I may say so, on the last occasion, I had read out to this House the Planning Commission's assessment on our energy scenario and this was also read out subsequently by various other participants. So, I do not want to repeat that
But on the point about India's energy security, we have to bear in mind the following. India's current power generation is 1.27 Giga Watts. At the current rate of the GDP, this needs to grow at 337 GW by 2016-17. There is no doubt that if this is not achieved, India's pace of development would be arrested. The moot question, however, is whether nuclear energy expansion is the only or the best option that we have today. In 2006, 3.9 GW of nuclear power was generated, that is, 3 per cent of our total power generation. In the most optimistic scenario, the Planning Commission estimates that this could go at best to 20 GW by 2016, over just over 6 per cent of our production at that point of time. So, all this is happening for that 6 per cent and for this 6 per cent should we today sacrifice and mortgage our, sovereignty, and in that sense be vulnerable to pressures from US imperialism. Further, given the abundance of coal reserves in India, the Planning Commission estimates that thermal energy would dominate power generation in India, and as far as hydro electricity is concerned, given the potential of nearly 150 GW, we have today only installed capacity of 33 GW. A huge untapped potential exists in hydro electricity. Now we have discovered large quantities of gas in the country and that option is also available apart from solar and wind options. So, has there been cost benefit analysis done by any agency of the government how and why we are preferring this nuclear option? Why I am saying this, Sir, is also the cost of it. It is often said that this 123 does not relate to the /aam aadmi /or it does not relate actually to the future of India, of the Indian people. Just consider the following. The estimates show us that the nuclear power being used for energy production is most expensive of all options. The prime minister himself has publicly said that we are targeting, say, 40,000 MW to be produced by nuclear energy by 2020 and 2025. Out of this 40,000 let us presume 10,000 MW would come from our own domestic reactors, that leaves 30,000 that is to be generated from nuclear energy and if this 30,000 MW is generated through imported nuclear reactors, the cost estimation for every MW will be 11 crores of rupees, that is, for this 30,000 we will be spending 3,30,000 crores of rupees. The same 30,000 WM if we produce through thermal it will be 4 crores per MW and the same if we produce through hydro-electricity or through gas, it will be 3 crores per MW. So, the cost differential is something to the tune of two lakh crores plus. Now if this two lakh crores plus was used in the field of education, we can build new 2.5 Navodaya Vidyalayas in our country. Lakhs 100 students can be on scholarship educated up to Class XII, that is, the option, the cost differential can educate 2.5 crore Indian boys and girls and give them quality education which we are forgoing because of using this most costly option. Out of the same amount of money, if you spend on health, you can create 20,000, hundred-bed hospitals, quality hospitals in this country and meet the health needs of our population. The question is why are we going into this expensive option at the expense of keeping our children illiterate, at the expense of not treating those people who require health attention? At that expense, why are we going in for such an expensive option? This is something for which there is no clear answer so far. I think in terms of cost benefit analysis this is the most expensive option we have and as a result not only the most expensive option we are denying the /aam aadmi/ whatever we could have given to him because whenever we say some issues of people's welfare must be taken, there is always this argument that there is a resource constraint. If there is a resource constraint, why are we using our scarce resources to satisfy, let us say, the orders to multinational corporations in a country, which has not installed a new nuclear power reactor in the last two decades?
The USA does not install them but it wants to sell their nuclear reactors to us. So, we end up buying their nuclear reactors and generating profit for them while, in our own country we deprive our own children from going and getting quality education or our own elderly senior citizens from getting quality health. Now, this is something not permissible if we want a real modern prosperous India. So, from that point of view, I think, this is a very big folly that we will be entering into, and, I think, there must be a re-think done by the government on this scope. The other pretext also, they say, is that if we enter the deal, then, we will be breaking the nuclear apartheid that is there on India or that we will be sitting on the nuclear high table of the world. I will come to that later, because all these are illusions. This is an illusory claim. If you go through the text and sub-text of the 123, then, you will see that this is an illusory trend. Therefore, the pretext for going into this deal, in my opinion, is very faulty and in fact, it is something that cannot substantiate the need for us to enter into such a deal.
If that is the case, then what is the context in which we have to see this deal? The deal, is not only to be seen in terms of the nuclear commerce or the nuclear benefit that is generally being propagated. We have the Under Secretary of State of the United States of America who has gone on record to state that there are at least four related benefits to this agreement as well. The first concerns non-proliferation. I am quoting, "For 30 years, India has been on the outside of that system, of non-proliferation. With this agreement, India will open up its system to international inspection and it puts the majority of its civilian reactors under IAEA safeguards. This deal now brings India back into the non-proliferation mainstream in a way it was not before." If this is the US claim, and this is what they want to bring us into, the non-proliferation regime through the backdoor, then, all the principle positions which the government of India has taken all along, which we have supported, that we will not sign the NPT because it is a discriminatory treaty, all that, falls flat. So, we think that there is a larger design that is involved in this deal.
The next benefit that he talks about is on the position of, and I quote, "The agreement also sends an important message to nuclear outlaw regimes such as Iran and that is the fact that we have already mentioned a number of times and the Hyde Act refers to Iran and our foreign policy positions which have to be incongruent with what the US position will be."
The third related benefit he talks about is the fact of military cooperation and of military sales. As much as they are interested in 123, Sir, in no unambiguous terms he talks of great military commerce with India and their target is 126 and not 123. And 126 is the combat aircraft, the military aircraft, that we are going to buy and they are hoping through this deal that they will cement India into a closer military cooperation. This, again, being the case, what we are now entering into, in my opinion, is a deal which actually takes India closer to the US positions on global issues as well as on regional strategic concerns; and what is being done is to drag India into or suck India into the vortex of being a subordinate ally of United States of America; and it is this subordinate ally status which we think is not in India's interest at the present moment. Why it is so, I will come to later. But the fact remains that this is something which we cannot afford to do now. I will, if time permits, also say certain very derogatory things that have been said about us and about our former prime ministers by the US Under Secretary of State. I am quoting. "The benefits of these historic agreements are very real for the United States. For the first time in three decades, India will submit its entire nuclear programme for international inspections etc." Secondly, he says that, "If India were to conduct a nuclear test, the United States would have the right under US laws to seek the return of all nuclear fuel and technology. "...shipped by US firms."
That apart, the important point on our foreign policy issue is, "This Agreement will also send a powerful message to nuclear outlays like Iran. If you play by the rules as India has, you will be rewarded..." -- Please underline the word 'rewarded' -- "...If you do not, you will face sanctions and isolation." So, this is the clear message that the US's official spokesman is saying that India is being rewarded for being, as they said, 'playing by the rules.' And, who defines the rules -- the United States of America. You play by their rules, you will be rewarded. If you do not play by their rules, you will not be rewarded like Iran. That is why we have these apprehensions. In the present context, if you look at the pressures that are put on India, unfortunately, we think that these pressures are already at work. When the Hyde Act talks of Indian Foreign Policy being congruent with that of the United States of America, where it refers to, on three occasions on Iran, they expect India to toe that line. We have seen in the past on our votes in the IAEA. I am not going into that. We had discussed that earlier.
But, now, what do we see? The trilateral meeting between Iran, Pakistan and India on the Iranian Gas Pipeline which we say is very necessary for us, for our energy augmentation, the same argument that is given for nuclear deal, the same argument for energy augmentation and it is a cheaper option, but, then, you have not attended that meeting. You had not gone there. Why? The answer needs to be given. Is it under the US pressure? The UN has imposed some sanctions on Iran. But, the US has extended and gone ahead and imposed certain unilateral sanctions on Iran beyond the UN sanctions. We have not obliged to accept the US sanctions. But, yet, last week, your SBI denies the lines of credit to Iranian firms which want to import goods from India to Iran and you are not even permitting these exports to take place, because you have not permitted them. Why? Again, under the US pressure! There is an Indian corporate house which has a multibillion dollar joint venture to be set up in Iran and they have now withdrawn from that. Why? It is under American pressure. If they do that, then their joint venture in the USA will suffer. So, all these are clear indications that we are already succumbing to these pressures when we need not succumb to the US pressures at all or US sanctions on Iran. But, we are doing this. And, this is sending a very, very serious ominous signal to what will be the future of our country's foreign policy.
In this context, I would also like to mention that there is a domestic context, since I am talking of the context, also which we cannot, today, ignore. All of us are being told that this nuclear deal that has happened is not certain flash in the pan, but is a part of overall growing relationship between India and the United States of America. I agree with that point, and we also recognise the architecture for the present strategic alliance was laid under the NDA rule for the past six years. Though military cooperation with the USA began under the Narasimha Rao government, but it was only after 1998 that a lot of this architecture of a strategic alliance with the USA had actually started.
I was listening, with a great respect, to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition this morning when we had expected the Ministers who travelled abroad to come and explain to the House what happened in those visits. But, we have had these rounds of discussions personally with Mr Strobe Talbot which we were informed by that gentleman and nobody else here. But, anyway, that is a different story. I am not going into that. But, what I am really concerned is that we were the first ones to have up in 2000 welcome the US National Defence Programme. In fact, the former prime minister articulates that India would be treated as US's natural ally. And, after the 9/11, we had written and offered our cooperation in the US war against terrorism or global war against terrorism and, to the extent, when the USA chose Pakistan, instead of India, the then prime minister, which is on record, says that, in fact, 'This is the logic of geography and it was the logic that the USA chooses Pakistan, not India.' In 2002, Bush Administration adopted a national security strategy.
This stated, The US has undertaken transformation in its bilateral relationship with India, based on a conviction that US' interests require a strong relationship with India." Then, followed the next round of talks with them, which extended cooperation in space, nuclear, high technology and missile defence fields. So, this background, we understand, which is the architecture because of which the deal has come.
Our point of view is the following. We have extended support to the UPA government precisely because, in our understanding, we wanted to keep, what we define as communal forces, away from power. But this support was based on a Common Minimum Programme. In that Common Minimum Programme, we have defined what will be our Foreign Policy direction; where it stated clearly that India will pursue an independent Foreign Policy, while strengthening relations with all countries, including the USA. There was no mention of any nuclear agreement in that. There was no mention of any strategic alliance in the Common Minimum Programme. Therefore, our support is based on the Common Minimum Programme. Our support to the UPA is based on the fact that we do not want the communal force to be in power. But we cannot allow the UPA government to proceed to complete the agenda that was begun by the NDA government, and that runs completely contrary to the basis of our support. Therefore, our appeal is that do not get into this situation, on an issue that is not there in the agreed Common Minimum Programme. And, if is not there in the Common Minimum Programme, we say that we are opposing this precisely also on that count that do not enlarge the agenda which has not been agreed upon. Therefore, do not take India to a course where we will end up being a subordinate ally of the United States of America.
Text of the Agreement
The text of the Agreement, shows that Agreement is very clearly anchored within the Hyde Act. And, this is not I am saying so; this is the US Secretary of State who says it very clearly, I quote, "We have to make sure that everything in this US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, the 123 Agreement, was completely consistent with the Hyde Act and well within the bounds of Hyde Act itself." This is their own statement. I had discussed the Hyde Act and its implications in the last debate. We had discussed about how various extraneous issues, by which the USA is imposing conditions on us. We have also discussed the fact that the US President has, on many occasions, stated that many things stated in the Hyde Act were not mandatory on him to follow. But, then, remember every US President has a right to decide on this. If, once this President goes and the other President comes in and says, "Yes, I abide by what is being said in the Hyde Act", all those provisions can be invoked against India. Let us not be under any illusion that the present President is a great friend of India; therefore, being a great friend of India he has said that these are not applicable, or he is not mandated to actually some of these provisions, which would be an illusion. But, then, in a lighter vein and with due respect, please remember all those who had considered George Bush as a good friend -- the Prime Minister of Britain, the prime minister of Australia, the prime minister of Japan, the government in Italy -- many of them have met a fate that we don't want our prime minister, or, this government to meet. We are supporting this government; we want to support this government. But, I do not want this fate to befall this government. Therefore, I ask this government to seriously reconsider this deal and not proceed ahead.
For me and my party the agenda that is most important is that this nuclear deal should not be implemented. My agenda is not on the government, whether it should stay or not. I want the government to stay. I want this nuclear deal not to happen and that is the stated position of our party.
I only want to say why this 123 Agreement is rooted in the Hyde Act. Article 2.1 of the 123 Agreement states, "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."
Now the question is, the respective national law for the United States America is the Hyde Act. Now, you cannot, therefore, be under the illusion that once the 123 Agreement has come, the 123 has superseded the Hyde Act. The US itself is very clear saying that 123 Agreement is within the Hyde Act, and it is anchored in the Hyde Act. Having done so, it would be a very, very dangerous illusion to think that these provisions of the Hyde Act are not applicable to us.
But, having said that, in the 123 Agreement itself there are three assurances which the hon. prime minister gave to this House, which I accepted, and we all accepted, but, which, I do not think, are met.
The first one concerns the uninterrupted fuel supplies. The 123 Agreement talks of uninterrupted fuel supplies till the life of the reactors. But, once the 123 Agreement is terminated, which can be done under the Hyde Act by any U.S. President who may come in the future, once that is done, the Hyde Act is very clear, it says that the moment 123 Agreement is terminated, supplies will stop. Not only will supplies stop, but the United States of America will work with all its allies to ensure nobody else supplies to us. And, that is also written in black and white. So, why are we going to an agreement where we buy those reactors at a huge cost. We have them with us, but we don't get the fuel. They threaten to take back those reactors also; bodily lift them and take them back. How is it that we are entering into an agreement where it violates the Prime Minster's own assurance that we will have uninterrupted fuel supplies.
The second assurance that the prime minister gave is that we will have full nuclear civilian cooperation. It is very clearly given in section 5 of the 123 Agreement that certain dual use technologies are barred from being transferred to India; whether it is on reprocessing, enrichment or heavy water. Okay, heavy water, we say that we are ourselves capable. We have enough of it here. We are, in fact, exporting heavy water. But, in any case, why should we be under any restrictive clauses saying that they will not be transferred to us unless this agreement is further amended? And the full nuclear cooperation clause, which the hon. prime minister assured us here, even that is not going to be fulfilled according to this text.
The third assurance is this. The prime minister said that everything should be done on the basis of reciprocity. This is the word used by the prime minister. You are going to the IAEA for talks now. You are going in to talks for saying that you will put your nuclear reactors under safeguards in perpetuity. But, we have just seen, the 123 Agreement can be terminated upon the will and whim of the US President. If that is the case, if that can be terminated, why should India be subjected to a perpetual safeguards by the International Atomic Energy? If that is terminated, then, this also ought to be terminated. That reciprocity must be valued, and must be upheld, and, therefore, even this is violated.
So, on the question of uninterrupted fuel supplies, on the question of full civilian nuclear cooperation, and on the question of reciprocity, on these three counts; the three assurances that the hon. Prime Minister has given, this deal does not allow India to even uphold what the hon. Prime Minister stated in this House, when he gave the assurances to the nation.
You have seen the pre-text, you have seen the context, and you have seen the text. On all these three, this deal does not stand. One of the most important issues is: does it benefit our country or not?
The question, normally, being asked is: Why did we 'allow' the government to go to IAEA? I don't like to use this word; it is not that the government should be allowed or disallowed. But, why

Sonia 'uncivil', snubs BJP
Sohrabuddin's brother to move apex court against Modi

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
Modi says fake police encounters cannot be accepted
Hindustan Times - 32 minutes ago
PTI Under attack for his controversial remarks on Sohrabuddin Sheikh killing, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday appeared to have back-tracked saying fake police encounters "cannot be accepted" and he has never justified it.
Modi admits to Sohrabuddin killing NDTV.com
EC notice to Modi for his Sohrab remarks Times of India
EC likely to look into Modi's remark on Sohrabuddin
New Delhi: The Election Commission is likely to look into the issue of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's speech justifying the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh on Thursday.
Commission is understood to have received the report from the Surat Collector late last night and might consider it, sources said.
Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswamy said on Wednesday in Surat that the poll panel would take a decision on the speech of the Chief Minister after it received the report from the Surat Collector.
He had said that the news had appeared in media but the commission would decide on what to do only after receiving the report of the district collector.
Modi at a public meeting at Magrol had justified the killing of Soharabuddin in an encounter and said such elements will be dealt in the same manner in the state.
Sohrabuddin's brother to move apex court against Modi
Ahmedabad: Angry over Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's apparent justification of the staged police killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, the victim's brother said today that he would approach the Supreme Court against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader.
Addressing a rally in south Gujarat on Tuesday, ahead of the assembly elections next week, Modi had said: "Sohrabuddin got what he deserved."
However, the victim's elder brother Rubabuddin Sheikh asked: "Why is Modi referring to my brother as a terrorist just six days before the polling in Gujarat?
"If the Gujarat government was convinced that he was a terrorist then why did it not say so in black and white in its affidavit before the Supreme Court?" Sheikh told IANS over telephone from Nagda in Madhya Pradesh.
Sohrabuddin Sheikh was killed in a police shootout near here in 2005. Police had termed him as a terrorist. However, Rubabuddin Sheikh filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking an investigation.
Following the court's orders, the Gujarat police this year launched an investigation, booking several senior police officers even as the state government admitted in an affidavit that cops had erred in killing the Muslim youth.
Over the last two days, Modi has made a reference to the killing in his election rallies and has been challenging the central government to hang him if he was guilty.
Rubabuddin Sheikh said: "How can he justify the killing of my brother for which police officials have been arrested? I will take it up in the Supreme Court and ask for stringent action against him."
He said he was going to file a complaint with the Election Commission seeking Modi's disqualification to contest the elections.
"How does the government explain the killing of Sohrabuddin's wife Kausar Bi? She was an innocent person who was also killed by them.
"Fearing an electoral defeat at the hands of his opponents, Modi has lost his mental balance and has been talking like this. Does he have no respect for law? He knows that very soon he will be the ex-chief minister of Gujarat," Rubabuddin Sheikh said.
Dinsha Patel, a central minister and Congress candidate fighting against Modi in the Maninagar constituency, said: "Since Modi knows that his fake development agenda is not going to get votes for his party, he has started raising such issues and is talking in such a language.
"I want to ask him, why is it that the terrorists have stopped coming to Gujarat to attack him since the police officials involved in the fake killings in the state were arrested?"
However, BJP General Secretary and Gujarat poll in-charge Arun Jaitley said, "It was a mere reference to an incident in his speech which the media decided to play up.
"It is the Congress and its president Sonia Gandhi who have taken the campaign agenda from development to other issues. It is they who have started calling Modi and his team 'maut ke saudagar' (merchants of death). It is they who have talked of 'Hindu terrorism' in Gujarat. Now when things have gone on that track, these will obviously be debated in public."
Source: IANS
Sonia 'uncivil', snubs BJP
Ahmedabad: Electioneering in Gujarat hotted up Saturday with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lambasting Congress president Sonia Gandhi for her use of "uncivil expressions" in dubbing Chief Minister Narendra Modi as "dishonest and a merchant of death".
In a statement, BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said: "We are pained at the choice of expressions and vocabulary of Sonia Gandhi. Since her speech was from a written text she is not entitled to benefit of doubt for poor understanding of Indian languages."
He said Sonia Gandhi was the leader of the ruling United Progressive Alliance in New Delhi which was "soft on terror". It was trying to save Afzal Guru, who faces death for masterminding the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, and also those responsible for the 2002 Godhra train fire incident.
"It is these terrorists who are the merchants of death. In hurling political abuses she seems bent on outdoing her general secretary B.K. Hariprasad," said Jaitley.
He went on to say: "It does not befit the Congress president to call Modi dishonest. It was the Congress president who has gifted to India Ottavio Quattrochhi (Italian businessman accused in the Bofors