THIRUVANANTHAPURAM:The CPI state executive committee meeting held here on Friday passed a resolution congratulating the students who participated in the Law Academy protest.
While lauding the efforts made by the government in settling the issue, the executive also called the attention of all concerned to address the issue pointed out by students regarding the awarding of internal marks.
“The reason why this protest turned successful was because of the unity displayed by students throughout the 29 days. Steps to implement the agreement reached in the conciliatory talks chaired by the Education Minister regarding the appointment of a new principal with required qualification have to be speeded up,” said the resolution.
It added: “Along with that, the anomalies in awarding internal marks should be rectified.
Earlier, CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran told mediapersons Kodiyeri Balakrishnan’s reference to ‘Co-Le-B alliance’ did not refer to the CPI.
Mentioning it was not the CPI which carried out the protests, Kanam said it was based on the complaint of V S Achuthanandan an inquiry was ordered by the Revenue Department regarding irregularities in land utilisation by the Academy.
“The CPI would not fall into the Co-Le-B alliance, said CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran. It was the AISF that led the agitations in the Law Academy issue, and not the CPI,” he added.
Panniyan slams Kodiyeri
Taking a dig at the comments made by CPM state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan in the party mouthpiece, CPI national executive committee member Panniyan Raveendran, at a function in Kollam on Friday, said CPI has never joined hands with forces which tried to hijack the student protest in front of Law Academy. “CPI is well aware of its legacy. It seems some people believe it is only when they do things that it becomes perfect. When others do the same thing, it becomes imperfect. Why don’t they see things in broader view? When the Education Minister calls the students for conciliatory talks, one students’ union declares they are calling off the protest. If their demands were met, why did the same student union attend the second meeting called by the minister?” Panniyan asked.
