Land Boundary Agreement

Anand sharma thdvr 1272396f Sun, 04 Sep 2016

Land Boundary Agreement

Shri Anand Sharma said that in the past few days the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address was continuing in the Lok Sabha. The debate concluded today. The Prime Minister gave his reply. He said his view in a high pitch so as to divert the attention from the main issues. His reply was disappointing. It is sad that the Prime Minister did not tell the people of country about one future thing which the opposition had raised during the debate, by Congress Vice-President and other political parties leaders.

 

The Prime Minister has remained salient about unemployment of lakhs of people in the country, jobs are being lost, the production is falling, exports is falling continuously for the past 14 months. The Prime Minister did not care to inform as to what steps he is taking to bring back the dwindling economy on the right path by his government.

 

In regards to the foreign policy the Prime Minister, he all of a sudden went to Rawalpindi in Pakistan, what agreement was reached, what assurance was given while he was well aware about the condition there, the Prime Minister was silent on this.

 

The Prime Minister was clearly asked about the Naga incident and issues related to Nagaland, related to Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal, though he did not talk to the Chief Ministers but said that a historic accord has been reached.

 

The Prime Minister also claimed to have historic Land boundary Agreement with Bangladesh, but he did not tell that the delay in this process was because of the responsibility of his party and the BJP. He did not say that when in the opposition, he had said that this Land Boundary Agreement was against the rights of India, had said that this was anti-India and two of his Cabinet Ministers who are in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, who were leader of the Opposition, during the UPA government, Shri Arun Jaitely and Smt. Sushma Swaraj, they both had said that this cannot be called Land Parcel Exchange as this is against the rights of the country. It would have been better if they accepted their old mistakes and had told the country honestly that this was possibly because of only one reason, the reason being that the country has a strong and responsible opposition and looking at the commitments this land boundary agreement was possible with our neighboures.