The past mistakes (which is the mildest word to describe the communists policies of 1948 (B.T.Randive), during China war and also emergency) have led to communists getting limited to 2 states. Even in those states communists have hugely benefited from the effective alliances they have forged and also the absence of credible opposition and also an opposition leader. Once Bengal and Kerala can get a leader of Nitish Kumar's calibre (who could position himself as an alternative to Lalu), even those 2 states will slip out their hands. It is time they carefully read the principle of diminishing returns. Any comments?
RE:Indan communists
by jcb jcb on Aug 01, 2008 01:38 PM Permalink
thats the problem, these communists cant be driven out because they are totally entrenched in the system. Bengal too changed somewhat only because of Buddha, otherwise they aer there to stay like it or not. bad for the state bad for the nation.
RE:Indan communists
by nano on Aug 01, 2008 02:05 PM Permalink
If the parties and election commissioner can ensure the free and fearless elections in Bengal at least Communists are not going to get clear majority.Even BJP must compromise in favour of congress to root out them.
RE:Rediff should review their policy
by Sathish N on Aug 01, 2008 12:51 PM Permalink
Are you willing to pay for reading/writing messages?? If rediff has to review all the messages written, then they will need to recruit additional staff just for this. They will then need to get money from somewhere for this additional expenditure. In a democratic society, we don't need controllers. What if the controller is biased. Will you have someone else overseeing him? Public in general need to read through the messages and derive is someone is raking up an issue-less issue and ignore it. Someone can even respond to it by cautioning others that the above post is inflammatory and best ignored for common interest.
RE:RE:Rediff should review their policy
by Sanjay Baxi on Aug 01, 2008 12:57 PM Permalink
Agreed, but can you guess how many of us do have that judgemental capacity, also can you rule out that these messages are not being read by minors? Let me give you an example, few years back yahoo also used to post messages like this, now they have stopped it, because majority of the messages were abusive. Remember yahoo is from that country which defines freedom. Now let me finally ask you, should rediff be held responsible for not doing enough to stop all kinds of hate messages. I am sure there can be a PIL against this. After all they are doing a business and it is their responsibility..
US which is the only country to have USED nuclear weapon say - "it is in the US interests and US law to cut off nuclear trade with a State that tests nuclear weapons."
That being said, I am still against the N-deal and hope they still consider what Squassoni said as true and torpedo the agreement.
I note that Pakistan has opposed the deal in IAEA. That means CPM and Pakistan both have opposed the deal., while Congress wants the bill. What does that mean?
RE:Nuclear deal
by rajeev raman on Aug 01, 2008 12:35 PM Permalink
the only beneficiery of this deal is the business groups from both the countires b,cose the deal is not 2-3 rupees, it is done for billions of dollors. and the benefit for india is that in future we can sit back and say yes,yes to the acts of us admn. thats all... totally a good deal for the both business houses and politicians.
RE:Nuclear deal
by Sathish N on Aug 01, 2008 12:45 PM Permalink
That means nothing. We need to think objectively and make rational judgment, not just based on what others are doing/thinking. Definitely, that is a point for consideration, but not for making judgment.
RE:Nuclear deal
by chandramouli sankaraseshan on Aug 01, 2008 12:30 PM Permalink
Devaiah your point i smisconstrued....Pak wants a deal for itself and they want to tie up with us...left is opposed to deal beacause they do not want a tie up with US...there is a idealogical difference there...but is the deal good for india....only time will tell....as an indian we hope it is good...meanwhile Viru was sensational today
RE:Nuclear deal
by david fish on Aug 01, 2008 12:48 PM Permalink
There are lot of talks about 1 2 3 Agreement between India & USA and it almost led to the topple of Central Government. In this mail I am trying to explain the commercial & technical aspects relating to this Agreement which I have read and sharing with you. What is 123 Agreement? This is called 123 Agreement because this comes under USA's Atomic Power Act Section 123.Let's see how India's (Indians?) Sovereinty & Independence are pledged... (1) After this Agreement USA will supply all fuel, machinery / equipment & technology to India for producing Nuclear Power. (2) All these days from about 22 Nuclear Power Plants, India is producing power as well as Atom. It's a high security / secret that from where which is produced, how much is produced, where it is supplied, what research is being done with that, etc. to anybody. But if we sign this Agreement, we have to disclose these secrets and also agree to 14 of our Nuclear Power Plants to be under the scanner of International Atomic Power Organisation. (3) The fuel utilised to produce Atomic Power can be recycled for reuse and this plant will be under direct supervision of IAPO.
RE:RE:Nuclear deal
by david fish on Aug 01, 2008 12:51 PM Permalink
If India does nuclear test, this agreement gets cancelled.But (1) USA will take back all the machinery / equipments / technology supplied to India thus far. (2) Those 14 plants will continue to be under scanner irrespective of the status of the agreement. On the other hand, if any of the commitments given by USA is breached by them, then there is no clause for cancelling this agreement. The agreement is apparently like this... USA can either hug India or slap India. India will not ask why are we hugged or why are we slapped. On the other hand, India cannot hug or slap USA for breach of agreement. This is only capsule so that easy to read and digest. Subject: India Pledged.... Part 2 Requirement of Power The most important requirement for India's Economic Growth in the coming years will be the power & infrastructure. The argument put forth favouring the 123 Agreement says that we need Nuclear Power Production to be increased to meet the demand.
RE:Nuclear deal
by Meer Ali on Aug 01, 2008 12:32 PM Permalink
what happens when the agreement is made with USA and all of a sudden USA will ask for inspection of neucular plants like did in IRAQ?
RE:RE:RE:Nuclear deal
by sushmita on Aug 01, 2008 12:48 PM Permalink
meer ali
iraq was at war continuously, and there was a chance that it had nuclear weapons that it would use against israel.
india is not at war with usa.
safety precautions for nuclear sites is good for india also. placing some for international inspections is not a bad idea.
we must remember that so far in history, usa is the only country that has exploded nuclear weapons in japan in the second world war, and because it was the winner, it had a chance to write history books saying that the weapons helped end the war quickly.
RE:Nuclear deal
by anand mehta on Aug 01, 2008 12:44 PM Permalink
And we are a small and weak country so we will just be run over by US !!!!. How stupid we can get. Make use of the agreement to get tehnology dfrom ALL. If we conduct a test, which is a remote possibility, all that US can do is cancel the agreement. By that time you should be able to stand on yr feat. Without the deal who will benefit? Left, Pak, coal mafia (incl Shibu Soren), Medha patekar as she would have many water bodies and mines to oppose their use. And we get electricity from? Thorium whose tech is yet to be developes? Coal that is limited? Waterbodies ? Or just continue to starve the farmers, villagers, urban population and industry of power.
RE:Nuclear deal
by Sathish N on Aug 01, 2008 12:56 PM Permalink
I am surprised that with you much being talked about on this deal you are ignorant that the deal specifies that US will take back the technology, fuels and everything, if we were to even have appeared to have breached the agreement.
RE:Nuclear deal
by sushmita on Aug 01, 2008 12:42 PM Permalink
the cpm opposed the deal as a stronger india would weaken china. they said they opposed it because they opposed the usa.
pakistan wanted the deal for itself and not for india.
so essentially, cpm behaved as the indian lobby group for china, and pakistan used some muslim groups to lobby in india.
RE:Nuclear deal
by AAA on Aug 01, 2008 01:01 PM Permalink
CPM, Congress, Pakistan ..... what yaar? What I understand is Rice Dal Ghee Masala = ? simple yaar, "Khichdi". No????
RE:RE:Nuclear deal
by ganesh chandra on Aug 01, 2008 12:26 PM Permalink
this means that congress have given Pakistan rulers some positive political space for electioneering
