*Dear Anil M * ** *Very good tactic to skip away from the question. * *You criticized in your previous email that CPM as a party do not value democratic setup. Why didn't you crtiticize the congress and BJP? Are they value democratic setup ???? * ** *regards * *Rasheed *
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Anil M <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
