Thursday, July 10, 2008

Bamera ki subidhabadi???

bameder sathe upa sorkarer je nuyotomo kormosuchi chilo ta borabori longhoner chesta koreche congress, ebong ta korte giye bameder probol badahar mukhe porte hoyeche congress ke, ete kosto peyeche amader anondo bajar patrika, jara goto 6 bochore amader birudhhe 186 khana sompadokiyo likhe galmondo koreche. r tate barbar abp bolte ceyeche sorkarer udarniti r arthik khetre sonsokarer badaha hoye dariyeche ei bam dal gulo,


jara cpim ba bamjot ke subidhabadi bolche tader jonyo boli ei bam jot kintu upa te theke 01. kuchro babsyai bideshi punji atkeche
02.sorkari bangulo ke pvt hote dei ni.
03.lav janak rastryawta company gulor bilongikoron atkeche.
04.shromoniti sithil korte dei ni.
05.pension bill sonskar korte dei ni.


Lies, Damn Lies and Sycophancy

In November 2007, the Indian government formed a UPA-Left Committee to look into the aspects of the nuclear deal from a political, strategic and technical perspective. The committee was supposed to discuss the features of the deal before ultimately making the final decision whether or not to operationalise the deal. It was seen as a face saving device between two allies, who had virtually diametric opposite views on the deal. While the Left had not let the government to proceed any further, the government got a valuable concession from the left to allow it to talk to the IAEA to pencil a safeguards agreement. The concession came with the caveat that the text of the safeguards agreement would be then brought into committee, before any decision to provide it to the board of governors of the IAEA is made.

First Lie

It turned out that neither was the text brought to the purview of the committee (the government instead presented a summary), nor was the government willing to place the text for discussion, terming that the text was classified. Instead the government tried to play a new tune, 'let us go to the IAEA board of governors, we will bring back the deal to the parliament after the up-down vote in the US Congress at which point the parliament's decision to accept it or not will be considered'. This refrain was confirmed by the prime minister himself in his statements. Clearly this refrain was not just against the grain of the UPA-Left Committee's written agreement, it was a blatant violation. Obviously the government had lied when it said that it wanted the text to be discussed before sending it to the board of governors.

The Text is "classified"?

When pointed out that the text of the IAEA safeguards agreement was not available in the public domain (the features of the safeguards agreement and the necessity to verify it's contents need not detain us in this article; they have been laid out in a statement of the left parties and also by a statement by eminent nuclear scientists circulated in the media), the government mentioned that it was not possible, as one had to "join government" to get to see the text of the agreement. Why is the government making this classification? After all texts/protocol negotiated with the IAEA by other countries (most prominently, the government's guru these days, the US) are available in the public domain and the IAEA itself has gone on record saying that it has not classified the text. Clearly the government has something to hide. Is it the fact that the text has clauses that violate the understanding provided by the prime minister in the house when he provided clear cut assurances about "full civil nuclear cooperation"? We cannot but speculate as the government is not keen at all to provide the text for us to make a reasoned conclusion.

Another lie

The next lie was even more damning. Just the day when the government effectively became a "minority" after the left parties withdrew support, the external affairs minister gave an assurance in public, that the government will not go to the IAEA board of governors before winning a vote of confidence as required once the president formally asks the government to face parliament on this issue. Fair enough, we thought, the government had spine and was willing to the right thing. We were wrong. The government, atleast the external affairs minister, simply lied. It was revealed by the IAEA itself in a press release on the 8th of July that the Indian government has indeed requested the IAEA secretariat to circulate the draft treaty for consideration of its board of governors. Clearly, the Indian government and its representatives in the cabinet had lived upto their lying credentials yet again.

What explains these public displays of bluffing and lying to the nation, in a matter of few days? It is not very difficult to surmise from where they have learnt this habit: from the perpetual liar and head of the US government, George Bush. Just a day before, Manmohan Singh emphatically said that India should stand "head-to-head and shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States". In a prelude to such "standing", Manmohan Singh's government now stands toe-to-toe and heart-to-heart with the biggest liar (ask Center for Public Integrity which documented more than 900 public lies by the George Bush government leading up to the horrible Iraq occupation). It is no secret that the US administration is teaching our dishonored government to just fib off right in the eyes of the public hawks of Indian democratic institutions. It is after all easy to do that. Very few newspapers/ news channels (such as The Hindu) will question these lies by pointing them out. After all, the corporate press is gaga about sending the nuclear deal to the next stage, "written agreement" may go to hell. And what if the IAEA safeguards text is not available in the public domain, eh?, they would not even ask. After all they have already been standing heart-to-heart and toe-to-toe with the American press in the way things are reported.

It is time to launch a massive campaign not just against the "notorious nuclear deal" as Prakash Karat put it, but against the agencies of disinformation and lying that predominate the corridors of power. It is time that democrats, progressives and believers in the spirit of constitutionalism join hands together in this endeavor.

http://www.pragoti.org/node/1626

Betrayal of Public Commitment

The Minister for External Affairs, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, announced on July 8, 2008 at a press conference that the government would send India's safeguards agreement to the International Atomic Energy Agency Board for approval only if it won the trust vote in parliament. "I cannot bind the government if we lose our majority", he said.



He also stated that he had consulted the Prime Minister who was in Japan, in this regard.



Coming hours after the announcement that the Left parties had decided to withdraw support to the government, this was a solemn commitment to the country that the government would not proceed to the Board of Governors of the IAEA till the government proved its majority in parliament.



It is shocking that less than twenty four hours of such a statement, the IAEA has announced that at the request of the Government of India, the text has been submitted to the Board for its consideration. (Annexure - press release of the IAEA).



This is a blatant violation of the assurance given by the government, a betrayal of a moral commitment to the country.



What transpired in the meeting of the Prime Minister with President Bush which led to this going back on a public pledge?



The Prime Minister owes an answer to the people and the country.



Text of the Safeguards Agreement



The Left parties had on July 8, 2008 asserted that it is the Government of India which is keeping the text confidential and not the IAEA. This has been confirmed by spokespersons of the IAEA in the last twenty four hours.



Subsequently, the text of the Draft India Safeguards Agreement is now available in the public domain. The Left parties will study the Draft of the Safeguards Agreement and come out with our analysis and stand.


Issued by:
Prakash Karat A.B. Bardhan Debabrata Biswas

General Secretary, CPI(M) General Secretary, CPI General Secretary, AIFB

Samne jor lorai!!!

Tabe shamne kothin larai. Sadharon manush er kachhe ekey pouchhei ditey habe. Khotikarok dik gulo bishesh bhabe tule dhorte habe. Congress er taraf theke ekta chesta hachhe puro byaparta k akta technical aspect theke dyakhnor, jate kore sadharon manush er bujhte asuvidhe hoy. Chesta cholchhe puro byaparta k aymon bhabe dyakhnor jate kore mone hoy j nuke deal er songe sadharon manush er jyano kono samporko e nei.

Bamponthy der er economic aspect gulo tule dhortei habe. Jyamon Joint Economic Forum er byaparta, ja dui desher shilpopati der niye gothito. Eder ja baktobyo jyamon banking ba insurance sector er liberalisation etc egulo tule dhorte habe.

Paromanobik biduyt ebong bamponthi ra.

Paromanobik biduyt niye bamponthira kokhonoi birodhita kore ni. Shaktir chahida metanor jonyo paromanobik biduyt er ekta bisesh gurutwapurno vumika ache.kintu tar jonyo bastob sonmoto dristi vongi niye egote hobe. koto utpadon khorcha porbe , ba unit proti koto dor porbe ta vavte hobe. jemon amdani kora pormanu chulli diye ekti paromanobik biduyt prokolpo chalu korte je korcha porbe tar theke oi soman khomota somponnyo ekti tapbiduyt prokolpo gorte tin gun kom korcha hobe.

sutorang druto biduyt ghattir obosaner jonyo amar mone hoi aro tap biduyt othoba jol biduyt prokolpo kendro gore tola uchit, najar dewa uchit solar energy segnent. amader rajyei solar energy niye darun kaj hochhe.

sobcheyer chintar bapar holo paromanobik biduyt utpadoner jonyo dorkar urenium, ja amader deshe kom ebong er jonyo amader onyo desher mukhopekhhi hoye thakte hobe. echara sobai janen urenimu er goto panch bochore dam bereche panchgun.

Question for dear Prime Minister!!!

The Left has asked five pointed questions about the draft and demanded a public debate before the government approaches the IAEA:

* In case the US or other countries in the NSG renege on fuel supply assurances for imported reactors, will we have the ability to withdraw these reactors from IAEA safeguards?
* If US/NSG countries renege on fuel supply assurances, can we withdraw our indigenous civilian reactors from IAEA Safeguards?
* If we have to bring nuclear fuel from the non-safeguarded part of our nuclear programme for these reactors in case of fuel supply assurances not being fulfilled, will we have the ability to take it back again?
* What are the corrective steps that India can take if fuel supplies are interrupted by the US/NSG countries?
* What are the conditions that India will have to fulfill if the corrective steps are to be put into operation?