Actually people should not be concerned about CPM and CPI. They are not democratic parties and should not be allowed to play any role in a democratic setup. Their politics/ party structure has been always anti –democratic. Can anyone imagine a more crooked setup than this PB and party committees? From local Vayanashala to Lok Sabha , they promote this culture. This Good VS fighting Bad Pinarai image is just a media creation. Both factions have nothing do with democratic politics. They are champions of crooked/scheming politics
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, damodar prasad <[email protected]>wrote: > I think all non-CPM poeple should shfit *focus from Governor to Governance > *. What a terrific mandate people gave to LDF and VS Acuthanadan. Now > after 3 years.. *entha sthithi*? anything other than factional > warfare? what was this govt. doing? what was the party doing?-- *a big > blockade; hindrance.* > > FM and IM could perhaps create some impression of doing something. > Even after the durbbing they rcvd in the elections, I think CPM has learned > nothing. > CPI, the second major partner.. They shoulf thank CPM leadership for > keeping them out of public attention. > The parrty and its minsiters failed miserably. Poorest of poor perfomance.. > *pakshe*, *----- no limit to arrogance.. day by day, Sri Sri No:2 is > learning to perfect it as art of arrogance... * > ** > ** > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, ranju radha <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Governor has acted against the politically motivated act of LDF govt to >> protect a corrupt politician. LDF's stand is against the interst of the >> people of kerala. Governor by "playing his politics" has stood frimly by the >> intersts of people in Kerala. >> i support "his politics". >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM, sunil kumar >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Its simple meaning is nothing, but Communist leaders are above all >>> 'bourgeois laws'. Because they are fighting against Bourgeoisie! What a >>> great revolutionary idea! Long live revolution! Long live Lavlin model. >>> >>> >>> On 09/06/2009, damodar prasad <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> *Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)- a Bourgieous enactment to save >>>> its crass compardor public leaders*I........... >>>> mean the clause clause in PCA invoked on need for the governor's >>>> sanction for prosecution. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM, damodar prasad < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *But Rasheed, Is not the . * >>>>> *I think by the way you were arguing about the necessity of CPs in >>>>> neo-liberal context in previous mails, you should've argued that CP >>>>> leaders >>>>> should be above the bourgiuoes law of PCA....... clean and uncontaminated >>>>> *.. >>>>> >>>>> Governors, of course are pawns in the hands of the central governemnt >>>>> and the CBI is no great independent instituion. But is it not desirable >>>>> that >>>>> Communist Party leader and the CP institution as such should be above such >>>>> posts? >>>>> >>>>> I am afraid that the way CPM has managed Lavalin, since the formation >>>>> of this Govt., has in turn helped the reactionary forces. >>>>> >>>>> The stubborn stance of CPM has enabled the bourgeous parties reap the >>>>> dividends of its mis-managed strategy. >>>>> >>>>> ( I referrred to "formation of this Govt" bocz when Lavalin issue came >>>>> up last time, Com. secy has boldly said that he is ready to face any >>>>> inquiry. >>>>> The boldness was missing later, :-) :-) :-) only to be found in the >>>>> words of English Desabhimani, I mean the Hindu editorial.) >>>>> >>>>> CPM has given an impression that something is severely rotten by the >>>>> way it handled the issue. >>>>> >>>>> The media syndicate must have done its duty but the stance of CPM as >>>>> regards non-compliance to judicial review only complicated the matter. >>>>> >>>>> As an enthusiast of CPM brand politics and observing politics above >>>>> factional self-ineterests, *you* should be more worrying about the >>>>> moral- voice of CPM at national level. >>>>> >>>>> The red card often held out by the CPM on corrupt practice and tainted >>>>> ministers will no longer be available. >>>>> >>>>> The argument of political fight on legal issues is not only avaliable >>>>> to CPM. Now this will echoed by anyone.. i mean all the "compradors".. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Abdul Rasheed <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *That does not mean that Governer is impartial. Sure, advocate >>>>>> General might have party interests. As one who have the right to >>>>>> criticize >>>>>> the AG, we can criticize the Governer too, since both of them are party >>>>>> nominees. * >>>>>> ** >>>>>> *But here the Governer acted against the advise of ministry and the >>>>>> advise of AG. He may have the discreetional power to take such a >>>>>> dicision. >>>>>> By doing this, here he became the part of a political game.* >>>>>> ** >>>>>> ** >>>>>> *regards * >>>>>> *Rasheed * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:02 AM, damodar prasad < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since Advocate General is elected by the people, to think he will >>>>>>> take a partial decision is against the commonsense. >>>>>>> But never had I thought a post-modern situation would prevail amidst >>>>>>> the feudal factional struggle for Leninist Truth. >>>>>>> What more eveidence needed for a the arrival of political relativism, >>>>>>> in other words, Most-Modern!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Abdul Rasheed >>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *The Governer is the nominee of the ruling party in centre. To >>>>>>>> think that he will take a completely impartial dicisions will be a >>>>>>>> stupidity. * >>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>> *regards * >>>>>>>> *Rasheed * >>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, sunil kumar < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Governor can sanction Minister's prosecution, says Supreme Court >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By Our Legal Correspondent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NEW DELHI, NOV. 5. The Supreme Court today held that the Governor >>>>>>>>> of a State could independently accord sanction for prosecution of a >>>>>>>>> Minister >>>>>>>>> in prevention of corruption cases without the "aid and advice" of the >>>>>>>>> Council of Ministers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Justice N. Santosh >>>>>>>>> Hegde, observed that "if on facts and circumstances of a case, the >>>>>>>>> Governor >>>>>>>>> cannot act in his own discretion there would be a complete breakdown >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> rule of law inasmuch as it would then be open for Governments to >>>>>>>>> refuse >>>>>>>>> sanction in spite of overwhelming material showing that a *prima >>>>>>>>> facie* case is made out." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Bench that included Justice S.N. Variava, Justice B.P. Singh, >>>>>>>>> Justice H.K. Sema and Justice S.B. Sinha said: "If, in cases where [a] >>>>>>>>> *prima facie* case is clearly made out, sanction to prosecute high >>>>>>>>> functionaries is refused or withheld, democracy itself will be at >>>>>>>>> stake. It >>>>>>>>> would then lead to a situation where people in power may break the >>>>>>>>> law with >>>>>>>>> impunity safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted as the >>>>>>>>> requisite sanction will not be granted." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Bench gave this ruling while upholding sanction for prosecution >>>>>>>>> accorded by the then Madhya Pradesh Governor against two former >>>>>>>>> Ministers, >>>>>>>>> Rajender Kumar Singh and Hisahu Ram Yadav. A case under the >>>>>>>>> Prevention of >>>>>>>>> Corruption Act was registered against them in March 1998 on the basis >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>> report from the Lok Ayukta. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sanction sought from the Council of Ministers for prosecuting the >>>>>>>>> two was rejected. The Council of Ministers held that there was not an >>>>>>>>> iota >>>>>>>>> of material available against them for proceeding with the case. The >>>>>>>>> Governor then considered the matter and opined that a *prima facie >>>>>>>>> * case was made out for granting sanction and gave it under >>>>>>>>> Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The two Ministers challenged the Governor's decision in the High >>>>>>>>> Court and both a single Judge and then a Division Bench quashed the >>>>>>>>> Governor's order. The special leave petition by the Madhya Pradesh >>>>>>>>> Special >>>>>>>>> Police Establishment was directed against this judgment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> © Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> " The so called caste-hindus are bitterly opposed to the depressed >>>>>> class using a public tank not because they really believe that the water >>>>>> will be thereby spoiled or will evaporate but because they are afraid of >>>>>> losing their superiority of caste and of equality being established >>>>>> between >>>>>> the former and the latter. We are resorting to this satyagraha not >>>>>> becasue >>>>>> we believe that the water of this particular tank has any exceptional >>>>>> qualities, but to establish our natural rights as citizens and human >>>>>> beings." >>>>>> >>>>>> - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
