NAM 038; the PM

The CPM loves good 8220;campaign issues8221; and wasn8217;t short of them during its August campaign. The targets were the usual 8211; the US, the UPA on issues that had the two sides differing on the National Common Minimum Programme and the Sangh Parivar. But, as reports in the CPM weekly state, the campaign was meant to show 8220;the increasing influence and the widening mass base of the party.8221; Not merely in the party strongholds of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura 8211; but with the party8217;s top leadership addressing meetings all over. In Mumbai, Prakash Karat spoke of the 8220;exploitative8221; fee structure in professional education institutes and the need to make them affordable. In Vizag, Sitaram Yechury listed UPA8217;s 8220;few good decisions8221; following pressure from the Left. In Kannur, Kerala unit chief Pinarayi Vijayan spoke on how the UPA government had 8220;foiled the development aspirations8221; of Kerala8217;s people.

Tribal vs Tiger

Answering the BJP8217;s criticism that the Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill was 8220;the worst Bill since independence8221;, Brinda Karat8217;s defence of the party8217;s position is: the CPM did support the Bill8217;s primary aim on setting up a statutory tiger conservation authority, but there was also the need to protect the rights of tribals as outlined amendment Bill8217;s preamble. BJP MPs in the Lok Sabha had criticised the Bill after amendments were made to it following interventions by the CPM. But Karat, writing in People8217;s Democracy, brushes aside the criticisms of the 8220;so-called tiger lobby.8221; She says a key component of the Tiger Task Force8217;s report was balance between conservation needs and the rights of tribals and local communities. The Bill introduced in the Rajya Sabha gave no guarantees for those living in and around the 8220;tiger bearing forests.8221; The tiger conservation authority had 8220;hardly any tribal representatives.8221;

Compiled by Ananda Majumdar