here's the relevant bit: ----- The CPI(M) said that vested interests and a section of the media had sought to justify the move on the ground that there was no harm in having such representatives since these were consultative groups. ... This meant that members of the group would not only have access to governmental records and proceedings but can also summon officials. "These activities are hardly of consultative nature. It is these rights ... that are rightly being questioned," the party said.
Responding to the charge that the Left Front Government in West Bengal did business with all the three agencies and adopted "double standards" to oppose the inclusion, the CPI(M) said that doing business with the international agencies and engaging in consultations with them did not tantamount to putting them on official bodies of the Indian state and granting them a right to intervene in sovereign matters.
"By all means, discuss with them but do not accord them the status of being a part of functioning of a sovereign state."
`Naïve media'
The argument of the "more naïve amongst media" that there was no harm in asking them to participate in decision-making process since they were funding projects was like saying that if one borrowed from a moneylender for the daughter's marriage, the moneylender must be consulted on the choice of the groom.
The whole exercise shows the "utter contempt" sections of the Planning Commission and the cheerleaders of globalisation towards the civil servants.
"There are shortcomings, weaknesses, etc., that is there for all to see... it is this civil service that has nurtured the system which produced the Presidents, the Prime Ministers, the deputy chairmen of the Planning Commission and the vast Indian intelligentsia," the CPI(M) said. ----- I find this persuasive.
Of course i am not suggesting that Ulhas is a "cheerleader of globalisation" - just that according to the CPI(M) he shares their arguments :>)
BTW, i agree with Ulhas that a critique of the really existing CPI(M) government in WBengal is called for. But a left critique, not the usual right critique that falsely glorifies "reforms" and space rockets and so on...
Also BTW- Pugliese take note - i'm not my eldest brother Shane and i do NOT (thankyoulord) giveaflyijngfuck about Khazars, Velikovsky, prehistoric dating, or what DSM category to assign to Koestler (famously given to non-consensual physical abuse of women - see <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/125>).
john mage