केरला स्स्ल्क एक्साम results

kerala s s l c exam results click hear

Repoll at 46 booths

NEW DELHI: The Election Commission has ordered repoll at 46 polling stations in seven States where elections were disturbed due to various reasons during phase I on Thursday.

While repoll would be held on Saturday in Assam (five polling stations), Andhra Pradesh (29), Uttar Pradesh (1) and Kerala (2), in Jammu and Kashmir (1) it will be held the next day. In Arunachal Pradesh (5) and Nagaland (3), repoll is scheduled for Monday.

Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami told The Hindu that the Commission ordered repoll at these stations mainly because the poll process was disturbed due to reasons such as violence, forcible removal of EVMs and their malfunctioning.

In the case of booths where polling was disturbed/could not take place due to naxal attacks or naxal-related activities, he said that in many of those places the EVMs reached their base only on Friday and based on the reports to be received from the observers and local election authorities, a decision on repoll in these places would be taken later.

At Gachiroli (Maharashtra), which witnessed naxal violence, the polling parties had reached a safe location and were being airlifted. Similarly in Chhattisgarh, Assam, Bihar and Orissa too, the parties were being brought back to safety from problem areas.
Compensation

The Commission said Rs. 10 lakh each would be paid as ex gratia to families of the poll personnel killed in violence or naxal/ militant attacks. In case of permanent disability, the amount would be Rs.5 lakh. It would be paid by the respective State governments/Union Territories where the personnel were on duty.

parliamentelectionindia

frendsgroup

UPA govt signs Rs10,000 cr Israel missile deal on the sly

New Delhi: On the eve of the general election, the UPA government has quietly signed a massive, legally opaque, Rs10,000 crore defence deal with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), ignoring a continuing probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and initial vigilance concerns.


The contract, to supply medium-range surface-to-air missiles (MRSAM), has raised worrying questions of propriety, with key bureaucrats and former defence officers playing influential roles in creating and pushing the deal through.

The deal, which was signed into a contract this month, comes at a time when India already possesses a more powerful missile in the same class --- the advanced air defence (AAD) missile, part of India's anti-ballistic missile shield.

DNA investigated the deal by accessing documents, tapping innumerable sources, and interviewing key military officers. A key point that emerged was that legal opinion did not conclusively favour the deal.

The deal, which is being kept under wraps, could sound the death-knell of the indigenous surface-to-air Akash missile system, into which hundreds of crores have been invested over the years. More importantly, the deal ignores the success of the AAD missile, which could be deployed as a surface-to-air missile and used exactly like the Israeli MRSAM.

DNA's investigation suggests that some former officers of the Indian Air Force (IAF) played a key role in limiting the large-scale induction of Akash into the force, pushing instead for the Israeli MRSAM. At least one of them is suspected to be working for the Israelis from New Delhi, say several military sources.

Joint development of the MRSAM between IAI and India's Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) was cleared in July 2007 by the cabinet committee on security (CCS). But defence minister AK Antony did not give it his final administrative clearance because of the CBI's continuing investigation into the Barak missile scam (see box p20). The CBI had by then filed an FIR on the purchase of the Barak missile system in 2000 from IAI and Rafael, naming former defence minister George Fernandes and then navy chief Sushil Kumar.

Despite CCS approval, a cautious Antony sought vigilance opinion on the file. The defence ministry's vigilance department cited the CBI investigation to suggest that the deal should not go through, two different sources told DNA. So, the defence minister asked the DRDO to keep the file pending.

But some time in the last week of March 2008, the DRDO was ordered to move the file again for CCS approval. This happened even though the CBI was still investigating IAI and had, in fact, found more evidence of Israeli firms engaging arms dealers for the 2000 deal with the Indian Navy.

Asked why the government did not blacklist the two firms despite the CBI's FIR, a senior official remarked: "What do we do when we are neck-deep with the Israelis?"

In the past, whenever allegations about the involvement of arms dealers have cropped up, the government has moved quickly to blacklist the firms involved. These include Bofors, HDW, and Denel. In all three cases, the blacklisting was done even before the CBI had filed FIRs.

A senior defence ministry official, who defended the government on the contract, said the MRSAM file was sent to the solicitor-general, who felt that the CBI's FIR was not a bar and the government could go ahead with the deal if it considered the missile essential. Similar, vague opinions favouring the deal were obtained by the ministry from other agencies. The Central Vigilance Commission said the deal could go through if it was in the national interest.

The defence ministry sought the opinion of the law ministry, which said much the same thing: if the equipment was essential to national security, the deal could go ahead.

After fishing for favourable legal opinion, the "IAF was asked to confirm that it was absolutely essential" for national security, the defence ministry official told DNA. The IAF gave this in writing.

It's worth noting that none of the legal opinions specifically cleared the deal. They essentially lobbed the ball back to the defence ministry, asking it to decide if the MRSAM was essential for national security. The DRDO used the grey area of national security to prepare a supplementary CCS note, which was approved in December 2008. The DRDO and IAI representatives signed the deal into a contract just days before the elections were announced.

The deal was done despite a defence ministry guideline that virtually bans dealings with IAI and Rafael. An order issued on October 3, 2008, "with the approval of the Hon'ble RM (Raksha Mantri)", laid down details about how to handle IAI and Rafael. In dealing with them, the defence ministry's order said, tenders in which the two firms were the only competitors should be withheld. Tenders in multi-vendor deals could be given to the two firms, but they would have to be withdrawn if the CBI filed any charge-sheet. In procurements already underway and involving the firms, vigilance clearance had to be sought afresh. It also said repeat orders for Barak should not be issued since the FIR had already been lodged on the original purchase.

These are precisely the guidelines the defence ministry has breached. IAI was the only competitor for the MRSAM deal. Ideally, the deal should not have been processed.

But, in 2008, despite the CBI investigation, vigilance guidelines, and lack of multiple vendors in contracts, the government and the air force pushed through several deals with IAI and Rafael. Besides MRSAM, it approved two others: a repeat order for Aerostat radars, and low-level quick-reaction missiles (LLQRM) to protect existing Aerostat radars. Both these purchases were cited as reasons for approving the MRSAM deal.

The fact is that there was no open tendering in any of these three contracts. IAI was the only participant from the beginning in the MRSAM contract, and no comparative pricing was done in the international market.

India Elections 2009 - A speech for Mr. Advani

Friends

I am happy to address you today as we approach the first phase of elections for the Lok Sabha.

I am also happy to note that the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is hale and healthy.

I wanted to take this ocassion to define to you what this Lok Sabha election must come to mean.

Today Congress President Sonia Gandhi made a very perceptive remark, I wonder if the irony was not lost on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Smt Sonia Gandhi said that while there were many who could be Prime Minister nobody could stand in front of Dr. Manmohan Singh.

How very true, even if any of us wanted to stand in front of Dr. Singh he is either unwilling or incapable of giving us the opportunity with his reluctance to contest the Lok Sabha election.

This friends is what this election ought to be about.

This election has to be about Leadership.

On the one hand you have strong and decisive Leadership that is willing to put its claims to test in the court of public opinion by directly holding itself accountable to the people.

On the other hand you have surrogacy that is being passed of as a substitute for Leadership with this reluctance to face the people by putting the 5 year record to test directly in a Lok Sabha contest.

I dont know if it is his waning love for Assam or the sliding fortunes of the Congress Party in that state that Dr. Manmohan Singh has chosen to shy away from a real Lok Sabha contest while continuing to claim to represent it in the Rajy Sabha.

Be that as it may, this election is also about something Dr. Manmohan Singh said today in his political remarks when he asked through his party’s surrogates in the media

“What is L.K. Advani’s contribution to National Welfare ?”

I wish Dr. Manmohan Singh had the courage and conviction to ask me that question face to face in a televised debate.

But then perhaps it is too much to expect him to face the people of this nation in a debate when he is reluctant to face them on the ballot.

Well Dr. Singh, my contribution to the welfare of this nation is the freedom that you enjoy today to ask me that question without fear of political persecution.

My contribution to the nation, Dr. Singh is that very same political freedom that your Party had deprived this nation of for four whole years by imposing emergency.

My contribution to the nation, Dr. Singh was to sacrifice my personal freedom and the comforts of life to fight for the cause democracy from inside the four walls of Jail during those four years of emergency while you continued to enjoy the comforts of everday life.

My contribution to the nation Dr. Singh was to defend that very document that entitles you to the Office of Prime Ministership - the Indian Constitution, the very document that your Party on every opportune occassion has trampled and violated.

I am not Oxbridge educated nor am I an economist by training.

But I do know a thing a or two about “welfare” and I am proud to have groomed some of the finest breed of leaders who have broken new ground in delivering Welfare through their Governance in states like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh.

Leadership Dr. Singh is not about being selected to High Office by virtue of lineage, but Leadership is about sowing the seeds of future leadership so many more can reap the harvest from their efforts.

I take pride in the fact that Team Advani has raised the bar on public welfare through Governance and Development initiatives like Jyotigram and Ladli Lakshmi Yojana.

Friends, this election is also about Leadership that has the courage and conviction to face the truth and does not shy away from making hard decisions.

Over the last five years there have been multiple terrorist attacks. I have on occassion met many victims and kith and kin of deceased in these terrorist attacks.

On every occassion these victims of terrorism ask me

Why is that the Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi never own up to their responsibility for lapses in Terror ?

Why is it they always give us cold comfort by pointing out that there were other attacks during the previous government ?

Should we draw comfort from the fact that others too suffered our fate and go on with our lives ?

Does our loss have no meaning to Dr. Manmohan Singh and Smt Sonia Gandhi that rather than explain how they will bring the Terrorists to justice, they want to spend time talking about what happened 8 years back ?
It pains me to hear Dr. Manmohan Singh run away from his government’s failures on Terrorism by harking back on what happened in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Yes there were lapses during the NDA regime too, yes things could have been done better, we learnt from our mistakes but we never shied away from putting our performance to the electoral test and we faced the people in 2004 and they gave their verdict.

But Dr. Manmohan Singh how does that help the victims of Delhi, Varnasi, Bangalore, Mumbai 7/11, Hyderabad, Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Ajmer Sharif, Guwahati and Mumbai 26/11.

Should that widowed wife, bereaved father and orphaned son take comfort in the fact that 10 years back too someone suffered in a terrorist attack ?

Dr. Manmohan Singh wanted the nation to reflect on what makes someone fit to be Prime Minister.

He is right, and the nation ought to reflect on this criminal negligence and continued delinquency on his part.

Friends I was pleased to note that the Congress party has released its manifesto where it intends to focus on Terrorism and the Economy. It reminds me of Primary School impositions where a child is asked to write a 100 times that they will not repeat a mistake. The Congress Manifesto seems no better than that in its repetition of things it did not do during the last 5 years that it now promises to do.

The Congress Party would like this election to be about festering the wounds of the past by raking up the unfortunate demolition of the Babri Masjid and the unacceptable riots in Gujarat.

The BJP is looking ahead and not to the past. Leadership is also about facing up to the ghosts of the past and about challenging the bigotry amongst your best friends.

In closing let me assure you that if the BJP lead NDA is voted back to power I shall personally lead the effort for a National Reconciliation on all contentious issues of the last century.

Its my assurance to the Youth of this country that bigotry of the past few decades will not be perpetuated and future governments will not have to carry the burden of the failed politics of Communal Socialism practised by the Congress Party during the first 4 decades after Independence.

Jai Hind and Vande Mataram

Ahamed to contest from Kerala's Malappuram seat

Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed was Friday nominated by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) to contest elections from Kerala's newly formed Malappuram Lok Sabha seat.

IUML supremo Panakkad Syed Mohammedali Shihab Thangal announced Ahamed's nomination at his residence here. He said former state education minister E.T. Mohammed Basheer has been nominated to contest from the Ponani seat, from where Ahamed has been elected to the Lok Sabha in 2004.

The 70-year-old was first elected to the Lok Sabha from the Manjeri seat in 1991, which he held till 2004.

Prior to being elected to the Lok Sabha, Ahamed was a five-time legislator and also was the state industries minister from 1982 to 1987 in K. Karunakaran's cabinet.

Basheer, who has been nominated to contest from Ponani, is a four-time legislator and was state education minister twice (1991-96 and 2004-06). The 62-year-old, however, lost the elections to the Tirur assembly seat in May 2006

Election '09: Muslims to test fortunes in UP

In an apparent bid to cash in on the Muslim vote bank, a number of outfits representing the community in Uttar Pradesh have decided to field candidates for the Lok Sabha polls.

Projecting them as the "real" well wishers of the minorities, these organisations have already announced their candidates.

Out of the 80 Lok Sabha constituencies, the population of Muslim voters is about 20 per cent in 17 of them, mostly in western Uttar Pradesh districts like Muzaffarnagar, Amroha and Moradabad.

In eastern Uttar Pradesh, the community plays a decisive role in constituencies of Azamgarh, Bahraich, Gonda, Srawasti, Varanasi and Duamariaganj.

Considering the fact, the Ulema Council, which came into existence after 29/11 Mumbai attacks, has announced to contest from more than a dozen Lok Sabha seats in the state including Congress strongholds Rae Bareli and Amethi.

The Council, which has its roots in Azamgarh and had first raised the issue of atrocities on "innocent Muslim youths" of the district by the police, is all set to make this its poll plank.

"Muslims will vote for our candidates. The community has realised that political parties are using them as a vote bank only," Amir Rashadi Madani, coordinator of Ulema Council, had said recently.

Following its footsteps, another organisation Peace Party too has announced to contest Lok Sabha elections on 30 seats.

While the party plans to field Muslim candidates on 10 seats, it is still looking for non-Muslim candidates on remaining 20 seats.

"We have to take all castes together to make a mark in elections. Besides Muslims, we will also be fielding candidates of other castes too," Peace Party leader Arshad said.

The Party too had organised a rally in the state capital to show its strength.

While the Council and Peace Party have decided to contest on their own, three others parties have forged an alliance -Milli Mahaj with a similar objective.

The alliance, which was announced on February 23, comprises Muslim Majlis, Parcham Party and National Loktantrik Party.

Mahaj, which has announced its candidate for Lucknow seat, while claiming that a few more like-minded organisations would join the alliance, said that it would declare its candidates on other seats soon.

Other than Muslims, the alliance is concentrating on mobilising most backwards and Dalits in its favour, its leaders claim.

Another organisation All India Muslim Forum has also joined the bandwagon by announcing a candidate for Chandauli parliamentary constituency