news details |
|
|
| Why NC leadership scuttled debate on Yousuf's demise? | | | What would have happened had speaker,Mohd.Akbar Lone,admitted in the Assembly one adjournment motion moved by the opposition PDP favouring a detailed discussion on a burning issue related to the demise of one National Conference worker,Syeed Mohd.Yousuf,allegedly in police custody?Possibly a discussion would have not set the river Jehlum on fire.Yes a detailed discussion could have set on fire the Dal Lake had the ruling National Conference leadership something to hide or conceal or had there been some involvement of the Chief Minister.Judged by the sequence of events,especially the CCTV footage that has shown Yousuf entering into the residential complex of the Chief Minister and leaving the complex as a normal man,one does not believe in reports that give a mild indication of involvement of those who matter in the ruling NC in the demise of Yousuf.If it is so why should have then the NC leadership been opposed to accepting PDP's adjournment motion?
Assuming that the speaker rejected the adjournment motion,he has the powers to do so,in order to allow the brief session of the Assembly to complete the business,the treasury benches in general and the Chief Minister in particular should have conveyed to the speaker its willingness to discuss the issue.They should have motivated the speaker to admit the adjournment motion or even while rejecting it fixed an hour's time for discussion on the issue.The ruling National Conference leadership preferred to leave it in the hands of the speaker.The result was that the Assembly witnessed unprecedented pandemonium in which the speaker and senior PDP leader,Molvi Iftikhar Hussain Ansari,were locked in a grim exchange of hot words.The heat of this exercise had touched the sky when Molvi Ansari uprooted the pedestal fan and tried to hurl it towards the speaker.
Yes,one cannot dispute the speaker's powers to accept or reject a private members' bill,resolution or motion.But the speaker is morally,if not constitutionally,bound to accept,atleast,those motions,resolution or bills that have direct impact on people of the state.At times speakers of Assemblies in different states in India act in a manner that compels members in believing that even after having got elected as presiding officers of the state legislature the speakers display bias in favour of the political parties to which they belong to.A number of legislators wish to ask the speaker whether resolution seeking clemency to Afzal Guru,sentenced to death on charge of his involvement in terrorist strike on the Parliament building in 2001,was more important that the bill seeking House support for the establishment of a new delimitation commission ?This too when the House support to clemency resolution would have no impact on the President of India before whom Guru's mercy petition is pending.The clemency resolution was accepted within three days of its submission whereas the bill on setting up delimitation commission has been pending for the last six months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
