No cut motion, notices for debate on FDI in retail, airports

New Delhi, Mar 17: The Communist Party of India (Marxists) today (Mar 17, 2006) made it clear that it would not bring about any cut motion to express their reservations about the fund allocation for the social, rural and agriculture sectors, among other things, saying, 'this is not the only answer'.

''We did not propose to bring in any such cut motion as we continue to support the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and hope that some corrective measures will be taken,'' CPI(M) Floor leaders in the Lok Sabha- Basudeb Achariya and Mohammad Salim told newspersons.

At a news conference here, the Left leaders said their party had already given notices to hold urgent discussion on FDI in retail and privatisation of Mumbai and Delhi airports within the remaining two- three day of the first phase of the Budget Session, which closes on March 22.

The CPI( M) leaders said they had submitted a 15-point memorandum of suggestion for resource mobilisation, indicating their priorities. '' It is unfortunate that even as some discussions have taken place on the Iran issue and the Indo-US nuclear deal on different fora, these two issues remained undiscussed in the House,'' they said, adding the Left parties would put pressure on the Manmohan Singh government to do so.

To a specific query, the CPI(M) would take all these issues to the people during the coming assembly polls in four states and one UT. ''We will tell the people about our differences with the UPA government on economic and foreign policy matters.'' Asked why the Left supported and opposed the Congress- led coalition simultaneously, Achariya and Salim emphasised that the Left got elected to as many as 54 seats in the Lok Sabha by defeating Congress candidates.

''But we supported the Congress to form a secular government to keep the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at bay and formulated the CMP the basis of governance. But whenever the government violate it, we oppose and launch mass movements.''

To another question pertaining to the President disqualifying SP member Jaya Bachchan from the Rajya Sabha today, Achariya said,'' the President should have not been brought into the controversy as there are already two Committees to deal with the issue.'' Endorsing Achariya's viewpoint, Salim said the President should have not been dragged into it as the people could level charges of partisan attitude concerning this issue.

Salim elaborated that even as the Constitution did not mention the ''exhaustive'' elaboration on the offices of profit, the Joint Parliamentary Committee and the Disqualification Act, 1959, have said if any MP held an office whereby he got a salary, perks and remuneration, it could be termed an office of profit.

''When the MPLADS and cash-for-query issues were referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, what was the rationale behind not sending the Jaya Bachchan issue to this committee?'' they added.

UNI