[ad_1]
As Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee gears as much as lead a march to Rashtrapati Bhavan Wednesday towards demonetisation, a wierd group of politicians and events have determined to throw their weight behind her. Banerjee was the primary politician to have come out within the open and converse towards the federal government’s transfer to discontinue greater denomination notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000. SP chief Mulayam Singh and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal quickly joined the league.
WATCH VIDEO
The opposition events have united towards the federal government’s transfer and an intense debate on the matter is predicted to happen on the primary day of the Winter Session in Parliament on Wednesday.
One of the foremost points of interest of Mamata’s march to Rashtrapati Bhavan would be the mixture of political events and leaders – who symbolize completely contrasting ideologies on the vast majority of points – which have come collectively to hitch her.
The first impression of this transfer to kind a united opposition regardless of ideological variations was displayed when Mamata made a press release on November 13, saying she was able to work collectively along with her long-standing political foe CPI(M) to tackle the central authorities.
While events like Congress and CPI(M) have determined to lift the difficulty in Parliament first, as an alternative of becoming a member of the march, the most important blow to BJP got here when its ally Shiv Sena introduced that they are going to be a part of TMC’s march. Former JK Chief Minister Omar Abdullah of National Conference occasion can be anticipated to hitch the march,
As per TMC, Banerjee talked to leaders of all the bulk events. She additionally held a 40-minute lengthy dialog with Kejriwal whose stand on the difficulty was not clear until then. However, IANS reported that Kejriwal is more likely to be part of the Wednesday march.
Leader of Opposition in Parliament and Congress member Ghulam Nabi Azad mentioned his occasion was not demanding a rollback of the coverage however was involved concerning the inconvenience precipitated to individuals and the way through which the choice was being applied.
[ad_2]