THE second week of the Budget Session witnessed a historical victory of the CPI(M). It was only the fourth instance in Rajya Sabha's history that an amendment moved by the Opposition to the Motion of Thanks to the President's address was passed. The amendment was passed in embarrassment to the Modi government reminding it of its minority status in the Upper House.More than 80 amendments were moved in both the houses of Parliament by CPI(M) members.

THIS week too both Houses of Parliament began with an uproar on the issue of religious conversion. In Lok Sabha, during the Zero Hour the House saw uproar with the Congress and the Left parties protesting against the government’s decision to keep schools open on Christmas to observe ‘Good Governance Day’. While Rajya Sabha saw a washout with a united opposition demanding a debate on religious conversion. CPI(M) Leader in Rajya Sabha Sitaram Yechury pointed out that we are not a “talking shop” where we go on talking which is meaningless.

THE second week of winter session began with an uproar in both the Houses of Parliament. Launching the BJPs campaign in Delhi, union minister of state Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti made a highly offensive statement which aimed at sharpening communal polarisation.

IN Rajya Sabha, Sitaram Yechury, while participating in a discussion on the working of the ministry of home affairs, pointed out that during 2013, as many as 823 incidents of communal disturbances took place in the country and out of these, 247 took place in Uttar Pradesh alone. And during the general elections too, the incident of Muzaffarnagar took place. During the second quarter of this year, 149 such incidents have taken place. In Maharashtra also where elections are due such incidents are happening frequently.

ON August 6, minister of state for corporate affairs, Nirmala Sitharaman presented India’s stand at the WTO. Speaking on the clarification on the statement given by the minister, Sitaram Yechury pointed out that since 1994, CPI(M) has been consistently opposing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade saying that this is detrimental to our country’s interest and now according to the minister’s statement it has proved to be correct. The clarification pertains to Para 8.