The congress leader who beat China warned the communist nation of how Indian forces like China can “seed venomous snakes” and said the world was watching China`s gloomy plans, while calling them “expansionist yellow.” Chowdhury also called on the Modi government to grant diplomatic recognition to Taiwan “without much delay.” “The views of congress leader Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury in China are its own and do not reflect the position of the party,” added Rajya Sabha MP. The PIL stated: “Despite a hostile relationship with China, respondent No. 1 (Congress) had signed an agreement by leading a coalition government and hiding the facts and details of the agreement from the country.” “In our limited experience, we have not heard that a political party is making an agreement with other countries,” the court said. The PIL was filed with the Supreme Court to investigate the 2008 NIA agreement between the Indian National Congress and the Chinese Communist Party, in the middle of the Indo-Chinese front-off, on the Line of Effective Control (LAC). The petitioners had claimed that Congress had signed the MoU when it was leading a coalition government in the centre and had not disclosed the facts and details of the agreement to the public. What benefited the Gandhi family from such an exceptional agreement? As senior politicians of the Congress Party, don`t they owe a statement to the Indian people? And especially to the 20 brave people who died defending our country in the Galwan Valley. What should their families think, that the party with which Rahul signed a contract is now attacking us? New Delhi: While hearing a plea calling for an investigation into the Memorandum of Understanding of the National Investigation Agency/Central Bureau of Investigation (MoU) of 7 August 2008 between the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) for the exchange of high-level information and cooperation between them, the Supreme Court on Friday asked how a political party could sign an agreement with a political ally of a foreign country. The petitioners argued that they had asked Congress to make the details of the agreement public, but it did not pay for the supply, reflecting the evil intent of the big old party.
- No categories
Subscribe to Blog via Email