Dear Rasheed Ask Ramesh Cehnnithala, your former UPA comrade. Why should I answer questions about Congress? However, this strategy of pointing towards Congress or BJP to cover up CPM's undemocratic practices/ culture is an old one. It may work in SFI study classes, that too am not sure now:) On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Abdul Rasheed <[email protected]> wrote:
> *Dear anil * > ** > *Perhaps, my knowlege is little. can you tell me, who elected KPCC > president? was it by kerala congress workers? Who elected youth congress > president ? was it by youth congress workers? Who elected the National > congress president ? Is the congress working committee an elected body? * > ** > *could you please explain the democracy of congress * > ** > *regards* > *Rasheed * > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Anil M <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
