LYUVA KHUTLA 2011 BEAT CONTEST PAHNOSANA

MHP Gen.Hqrs.Siaha : LYUVA KHUTLA PRGANISING BOARD PACHHUAH PANOHNA RY LIATA TARI 28/2/2011 LIANA KHI TA, MARA RAH CHHOH LIATA BEAT GROUP-NAHZY BEAT CONTEST A TAOPASUA AWPA CHA TA, A HLAO KHOPAZY CHA, PUHPA PASA T.AZYU,PRESIDENT MHP GEN,HQRS.NATA PIHNO HC.NAKUA.SR.ADVISER.MHP GEN,HQRS,ZY HNOH TA TARI 26.2.2011 CHHA HLATA NAMA GROUP MOH NATA KHIH MOH/VAIH MOH PANGIA CHYU AWPA TA PAHNOSAPA NAMA CHA.

read more...

Laki khihsawzy Baptist tawhta ECM la ama ngia pakhua khai haw

Eima hnohla ta thatih liana khata Laki khihsawzy ta ECM puasaipa ta Baptist Church of Maraland apaduahapazy cha lohraoh kawpa ta ECM nopawpazy ama zatly tawhta ECM Awhnanopa la ama vawngia pakhua khai haw.

ECM Moderator Rev. S.T. Zawsi nata Rev. C. Beima zy ta Laki khihsawzy he hata chhana liata zatly eita, hmo yziezy za reikhei eita, chatanachata Lakih khihsaw zydua ahmiala ta 'Baptist Church of Maraland' ava paduahapa zawpi zydua cha Evangelical Church of Maraland (ECM) lata ama vawkua pakhua khai haw, tahpa thatih eima dao.

read more...

Two Orissa villages oppose Posco

NEW DELHI: The Orissa government bats for it, the PMO is in favour and environment minister Jairam Ramesh has obliged, but the Rs 54,000-crore Posco project has found two difficult adversaries —the villages of Dhinkia and Gobindpur.

The two villages have written to Ramesh, saying they have not agreed to the takeover of forest land for the integrated steel plant under the Forest Rights Act and complained the Act has not been implemented in their lands. This creates a legal impediment for Orissa to give the assurance Ramesh had sought as a precondition to the forest clearance.

Under the Forest Rights Act, consent of the affected village council is mandatory before forest lands can be transferred to any project developer by the state government.

Under the Act, all claims in the forest lands by traditional forest dwellers — tribals and others — have to be settled and the permission of the village council taken before such rights are bought out by the state in favour of any project developer.

With the PMO leaning hard on him to clear the biggest single FDI project, Ramesh overrode his own order which requires such village council permissions on environment ministry records. The environment minister instead left it for the Orissa government to provide an assurance that all rights under FRA had been settled. Under the law, the state government can only give such an assurance once it has permission from the affected village councils.

Now, the two villages have written to the Union minister, stating their rights have not been settled even though they filed their applications for individual and community rights in the forests marked out for the project.

The bulk of the 1,253 hectares of forest land falls within the boundary of these two villages in Jagatsinghpur district.

The letters of complaint received by the ministry come along with copies of the village council resolutions dating back to February 2010 where the villagers had rejected the proposal and re-asserted their rights to the contentious forest patch.

They are also accompanied by affidavits of the sarpanch of Dhinkia, stating they have not received any information, documents or records from the state government regarding the implementation of FRA in the area.

Dhinkia has been the hub of protests against the Korean steel giant and has remained blockaded for long. The N C Saxena panel on FRA as well as the Meena Gupta committee specifically reviewing Posco had found rights of the non-ST population in the area had not been settled. Consequently, the environment ministry`s statutory Forest Advisory Committee had recommended rejection of the forest clearance to the project for violation of FRA. Ramesh had instead preferred to let Orissa come back to it with an assurance, which will now be difficult to prove.

Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com

read more...

Over 1 lakh phones are tapped every year

NEW DELHI: Some startling figures tumbled out on rampant phone tapping in the country when telecom service provider Reliance Communications told the Supreme Court on Monday that the authorities had asked it to tap 1.51 lakh phone numbers in a five-year span between 2006 and 2010.

This works out to an average of over 30,000 telephone interceptions every year by a single service provider on the orders of various law enforcing agencies. Or, over 82 telephones were intercepted every day by a single service provider.

Reliance is the second-largest service provider with a subscriber base of 12.57 crore as in 2010. The biggest service provider, Bharti Airtel, had 15.25 crore subscribers in 2010, while Vodafone's subscriber base was just a shade lower than Reliance's at 12.43 crore. State-owned BSNL came fourth with 8.67 crore subscribers.

If Reliance's ratio of phones tapped to the number of its subscribers were to be taken as representative and applied to other service providers, it is a fair assumption that government agencies were tapping more than one lakh phones every year.

In Delhi alone, Reliance tapped a total of 3,588 phones in 2005 when the teledensity was low compared to today. It also included Amar Singh's number which was put under surveillance — allegedly on a forged letter from Delhi Police.

Four days back, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly had expressed concern over the large number of interceptions being ordered by the agencies and the "grave danger" this posed to the citizen's right to privacy.

In an affidavit tendered by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani before the bench, Reliance Communications said: "The total number of interceptions in 2005 in respect of Delhi Service Area were 3,588. There were about 1.51 lakh number of cases for monitoring/interception during the period 2006-10 in all India."

Responding to the court's observation that no service provider worth its salt would intercept a phone based on a purported communication full of grammatical and spelling mistakes, Reliance said most of the genuine interception orders were identical to the now known forged letter as far as spelling and grammatical mistakes were concerned. It cited a genuine interception order of February 1, 2011, received from the Delhi Police to make its point.

After detailing the precautions it had taken, including writing to the authorities to authenticate the letter asking for interception of Amar Singh's phone, Reliance said it received no response, yet it was duty bound under a bona fide perception of the letter to continue interception for 15 days.

"A bare perusal of various letters sent by Ranjit Narayan (then Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police) and R Narayanswami (then Delhi home secretary) show that the letters dated October 22, 2005 and November 9, 2005 (both purportedly forged ones) were similar to other letters received from them," Reliance said while claiming its innocence in the interception controversy.

It said request for surveillance of a telephone from the law enforcement agencies could not be postponed based on spelling mistakes in the communication from agencies as it called for immediate action "for safety of general public at large and in the interest of the nation." It added: "Postponing compliance on the ground of inconsequential mistakes like spelling errors may conceivably lead to a serious terrorist attack and the blame may fall on us."

"The service providers are also required to provide assistance to law enforcement agencies as per the licence condition. Any violation of it can lead to a penalty of Rs 50 crore," Reliance said.

It said service providers do not keep a record of conversations taped from a phone under surveillance. Reliance Communication said it did not have the technology to record the conversations and that there was no law mandating the service provider to record the conversations and submit it to the law enforcement agencies.

Source:  timesofindia.indiatimes.com

read more...

A valentine to Wayne Rooney

Andrew Yates/AFP/Getty ImagesWayne Rooney needs to prove that Saturday's acrobatic game winner wasn't an isolated moment
of brilliance in an otherwise underachieving season.

Now we know why that purple-faced meanie, Sir Alex Ferguson, played nice with Master Wayne during their contractual smackdown in October. Rather than telling his Prodigal Striker never to darken the gates of Old Trafford again -- as he had done with David Beckham, Roy Keane and just about any other player who felt he was too big for his United shirt -- Sir Alex kept faith with Rooney.

And continued to do so despite the fact that for the past 11 months Wazza needed a seeing-eye dog to find the back of the net and United had a cold-eyed Mexican sharpshooter waiting in the wings.

Ferguson is nothing if not a pragmatist and a true believer in the old soccer maxim: Form is temporary, class is forever. After all, ever since that ankle injury this past March, Rooney's once-fearsome finishing ability has been cohabitating in the witness protection program with Tiger Woods' swing. If any further evidence was needed of his current malaise, Rooney offered it up in hapless abundance for the first 77 minutes of Saturday's Manchester derby.

From the early moments, when a bone-rattling challenge by City's resident hard man,Vincent Kompany, turned Rooney into a human Exocet missile, Wazza had the look of a man spoiling for a fight rather than someone focused on his craft. His passes routinely went astray, his runs were mistimed and his tackles bordered on the reckless. As Rooney himself was to admit to reporters later: "To be honest, I wasn't too pleased with my overall performance today."

With the exception of his flick-on in the buildup to Nani's opening goal, Rooney was a peripheral figure in the United attack, isolated up top and struggling to imprint himself on the game. In fact, just before United launched the sequence of passes that would result in Rooney's unforgettable finish, the cameras panned to Michael Owen, last season's Manchester derby hero, warming up on the sidelines, likely in anticipation of replacing The Forlorn One.

Almost on cue, Rooney hit a poor chip that only the sure touch of Paul Scholes could keep from derailing the move. And then came the 77th minute.

Wayne Rooney -- the game-changer who lost his way in South Africa -- finally returned to the ranks of world-class strikers by conjuring up a piece of improvisational genius that even had this hardened Arsenal fan banging his glass of Stella on the bar in awed appreciation. It's not too much of a stretch to say that years from now, long after Sir Alex has abdicated and even Ryan Giggs has stopped messing with Father Time, that anybody in thrall to the wonder of soccer will ask each other "Where were you when Rooney scored that goal?"

I was at my local pub awash in a sea of the wrong red shirts when the ball whistled off Rooney's right foot (only a Liverpool fan would say right shin) and into the back of the net. The roar that went up was so loud and primal that I thought the beer taps would spontaneously combust. (Fortunately, they didn't.)

My friend Luke Dempsey, a born and bred Manc who named his daughter after the legendary Eric Cantona, spoke for all United fans when he proclaimed: "God can take me now and I wouldn't complain."

I reminded Luke that he had said the same thing right after Dimitar Berbatov scored on a glorious overhead kick against Liverpool earlier this season.

"There's a difference," he explained. "As great as Berba's goal was, it was the second of a hat trick, it hit the underside of the bar and it didn't prove decisive. In other words, it didn't meet Cantona's criteria that a good goal is one that is important and beautiful."

Rooney's masterpiece, which was both the game winner and impossibly gorgeous, not only qualified for admission to Cantona's pantheon but also to Ferguson's. "We've had some fantastic goals down the years at Old Trafford," Sir Alex declared in his postmatch press conference, "but the execution of that goal, you'll never see that again."

What took the breath away was the otherworldly combination of athleticism, technique and confidence on display. Nani's cross from the right flank was targeted for Rooney's head but a slight deflection caused it to spin behind the striker. In a split second, Rooney had both the physical and mental dexterity to adjust his body to the altered flight of the ball, turning his back to goal and launching himself off the ground in a sliver of space between Kompany and Micah Richards. So ferocious was the power with which Rooney's right instep met the dropping orb that Joe Hart never moved a muscle before picking the ball out of the net.

When Rooney scored his brace against Aston Villa two weeks ago -- only his fourth goal from open play this season -- his celebration had been rather muted, as if he knew he still wasn't back to his old menacing self. But not this time. This was a finish of such unanticipated wonder that you could sense the catharsis in his backward-strut-into-a-Messiah-like-pose.

All that separated it from one of Cantona's famous post-goal salutes was the absence of a popped collar and an impish wink. While the Frenchman had exuded cheek, the Englishman radiated defiance.

By scoring a transcendent goal against United's arriviste crosstown rivals and the very team he had used as leverage during his toxic contract squabble, Rooney finally paid his debt to the supporters who had stuck by him during his troubles. "The Manchester United fans deserve that from me," he said of his goal.

Yet before he can be truly redeemed, Rooney needs to prove that Saturday's acrobatic game winner wasn't an isolated moment of brilliance in an otherwise underachieving season. But for now, just like his magical moment Saturday, the Old Trafford faithful are head over heels that Wazza is back.

David Hirshey has been covering soccer for more than 30 years and has written about the sport for The New York Times, Time, ESPN The Magazine and Deadspin. He is the co-author of "The ESPN World Cup Companion" and played himself (almost convincingly) in the acclaimed soccer documentary "Once in a Lifetime."

Source: Espn.go.com

read more...