WHO AND H1N1

WHO has two main indicator , when it dealt with influenza virus outbreak.

The first one is Pandemic Alert Level,which defines the stages of a pandemic, outlines WHO's role and makes recommendations for national measures before and during a pandemic.The chart is given below

WHO Pandemic Influenza Phases (2009)
Phase	Description
Phase 1	No animal influenza virus circulating among animals have been reported to cause infection in humans.
Phase 2	An animal influenza virus circulating in domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused infection in humans and is therefore considered a specific potential pandemic threat.
Phase 3	An animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of disease in people, but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to sustain community-level outbreaks.
Phase 4	Human to human transmission of an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus able to sustain community-level outbreaks has been verified.
Phase 5	Human-to-human spread of the virus in two or more countries in one WHO region.
Phase 6	In addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5, the same virus spreads from human-to-human in at least one other country in another WHO region.
Post peak period	Levels of pandemic influenza in most countries with adequate surveillance have dropped below peak levels.
Post pandemic period	Levels of influenza activity have returned to the levels seen for seasonal influenza in most countries with adequate surveillance.

The second is PANDEMIC SEVERITY INDEX The index focuses less on how likely a disease will spread worldwide-that is, become a pandemic-and more upon how severe the epidemic actually is.The main criterion used to measure pandemic severity will be case-fatality ratio (CFR), the percentage of deaths out of the total reported cases of the disease.The table is given below

Category	CFR
1	less than 0.1%
2	0.1% to 0.5%
3	0.5% to 1%
4	1% to 2%
5	2% or higher

RIGHT TO EDUCATION PART 2

Though the bill has been passed , but the implementation is going to be tough, the fact why the bill was so important is when we talk of ourselves to be world's next superpower, the education system and its depth provides a abysmal picture. In india of every 100 children attending elementary school only 12 reached the graduation level; in Europe it is 50-70 (students reaching college from the elementary level) and the global average 27. The Centre wanted to increase India’s average to 15 by 2012 and to 30-35 by 2020.

GLOBAL SCENARIO

 The right to education has been universally recognised since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (though referred to by the ILO already in the 1920’s) and has since been enshrined in various international conventions, national constitutions and development plans. However, while the vast majority of countries has signed up to, and ratified international conventions (such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) far fewer have integrated these rights in national constitutions or provided the legislative and administrative frameworks to ensure that these rights are realised in practice. In some cases the right exists along with the assumption that the user should pay for this right, undermining the very concept of a right. In others, the right exists in theory but there is no capacity to implement this right in practice. Inevitably, a lack of government support for the right to education hits the poorest hardest. Today, the right to education is still denied to millions around the world.

EDUCATION AND 4  As

 For education to be a meaningful right it must be available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. The concept of these 4 As was developed by the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Katarina Tomasevski, and it is one of the best ways to assess and act upon the situation.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL

HISTORY

At the time of independence, the creators of the Constitution of India wanted every child up to the age of 14 to enjoy the right to and have enrolment in education by the 1960’s. Yet this intent was passed as Article 45 under Directive Principles of State Policy, which “are not enforceable by the courts”. The original Article 45 of the Constitution “seeks to provide free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14”. Although the Constituent Assembly of India said we would be “cheating the nation” by not providing education to all, 60 years down the road we yet are to accomplish this fundamental goal.

As Article 45 did not accomplish providing education to all children up to the age of 14, the year 1968 saw education again on the agenda with the formulation of the National Policy on Education of 1968 that laid out guidelines for ‘status, emoluments, and education of teachers’ and ‘development of languages’ and also ‘equalisation of educational opportunity’ etc.

Then in the mid eighties, then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi set up a committee to review elementary education. This committee drafted the “Challenge of Education: A Policy Perspective” which was the forerunner to the “National Policy on Education 1986 (NPE)”. If this policy had been enacted in 1986, “every child of 11 years in 1990 and of 14 years in 1995 would be in school”. The NPE had a detailed ‘programme of action’ for each clause in order to accomplish the goal of providing elementary education to every child.

In the early 1990’s then Prime Minister VP Singh set up a new committee under the chairmanship of Acharya Ram Murthy, which reviewed the 1986 NPE. This committee made cosmetic changes to the 1986 NPE but did “extend the deadline of providing education to every child by the turn of the century.” This was not accomplished.

Next, BJP introduced the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which said all children would complete eight years of schooling by 2010, but for that goal to be accomplished all children would have had to be enrolled by 2003. In 2002, BJP drafted the Right to Education Bill, 2002, which did not get passed in Parliament.

Then during UPA tenure , the bill is reviewed by a the committe set up for it,it provided a modified version of the bill , which was presented in rajya sabha in 2008, but was not able to be get passed.

THE OBSTACLES

Since it was put in directive principles of constitution , which are not enforceable by court , and these principles are generally taken for granted by both central and state goverment , thinking it as responsibility of other, the right to education was not meet . The NPE(rajiv gandhi) was not sucessful as there was a change of goverment.

For later , the factors, were the insistence of some academics that the Bill is not ready to be passed because the quality of education being assured is not “perfect to the T”. A concern of the government has been regarding the “justice-ability” of the Bill. Along the way there have been changes in the Constitution. While the original Article 45 mandated compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14, the 86th amendment to the Constitution mandated compulsory education to children between the ages of 6-14.(adding of article 21a) To protect the 0-6 age group, the early childhood care and education (ECCE) was established but only as a directive for states wherein they would “endeavour to provide” pre-schooling to the 0-3 and the 3-6 age group.(article 45th changed)

CURRENT SCENARIO

Key provisions of the Bill include: * 25% reservation in private schools for disadvantaged children from the neighbourhood, at the entry level. The government will reimburse expenditure incurred by schools. * No donation or capitation fee on admission. * No interviewing the child or parents as part of the screening process. The Bill also prohibits physical punishment, expulsion or detention of a child, and deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes other than census or election duty and disaster relief. Running a school without recognition will attract penal action.

It will be known as ‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2009,’ The Rajya Sabha passed the Bill on July 20 2009.Once the President gave assent to the Bill, getting education would be a fundamental right of the child.

BALUCHISTAN ISSUE

Baluchistan is one of the 4 states/provinces of Pakistan. It constitutes roughly 40-43% of the land mass with only 5%-7% share in the population. It has the richest mineral and natural resources in the country, yet, is the most improvished area of Pakistan with the lowest literacy, health and infrastructre indices

HISTORY

Let me start with a bit of history. The region was largely under Iranian kingly control and the autonomous principality of Kalat. The British wrested control away from the Khan of Kalat in the early 1840s and it became the staging ground for the various Afghan-British wars (the Great Game) in the later half of 19th century. The 1876 treaty between the Khan of Kalat and Robert Sandeman accepted the independence of the Kalat as an allied state with British military outposts in the region. After the 1878 Afghan War, the British established Baluchistan as a provinicial entity centered around the municipality of Quetta – Kalat, Makran, and Lasbella continuing to exist as princely realms. The British interest in the region was largely to use it as a land-mass bulwark against Central Asian encroachments. Besides a train track, the development and settlement of British holdings excluded most of the tribal population. The administrative and legislative reforms of late 19th and early 20th century India overlooked Baluchistan. Around the 1930s, Baluchi nationalist parties emerged to contest for freedom from British rule. They took the princely state of Kalat as the focal point of a free and united Baluchistan. Iqbal’s vision of autonomous federation of Muslim state included Baluchistan but the Khan of Kalat never brought into the Punjabi nationalist paradigm, arguing that the Kalat had special treaty powers. Baglar Begi Khan declared the independence of Kalat on August 15, 1947. He assured the neo-state of Pakistan that Kalat will participate in the defense and infrastructure but will be autonomous. That didn’t go over well at all and the Pakistani army entered the region to occupy the area immediately. On Mar 27, 1948, the Khan of Kalat gave in to the State of Pakistan and his old attorney M. A. Jinnah. His brother Abdul Karim Baloch refused to surrender and revolted until his arrest in 1950. Baluchistan was put under Governor General control and no elective body formed in Baluchistan until 1973. After Partition, the threat of E. Pakistani – read Bengali – hegemony (55% of population at the time), forced the Punjabi military and civil elite (in 1947, Punjabis made up 77% of the army being only 25% of the population) to consitute W. Pakistan as One Unit in the 1956 Constitution. This was done presumably to guarantee equal representation for W. Pakistan but the measure was highly unpopular in Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP because it meant rule of the Punjabi over their regional interests. Separatist, sub-national movements triumphing local languages and cultures and protesting Punjabi hegemony arose in all the three states. Especially in Baluchistan, the Khan of Kalat led a stringent opposition to the One Unit. But the wave of military dictatorships quashed all such designs. In 1970, Yayha Khan dissolved the One Unit to appease E. Pakistan but the horrific damage done by the army in soon-to-be-Bangladesh proved too much. After 1971, the sub-nationalist movements in Sindh and Baluchistan demanded their fair share of the nationalist pie. With Bangladesh’s independence, Punjab became the most populous and richest state in the country. It had 58% of the population while Baluchistan had 4%. Led by Bhutto’s central populism, Baluchistan had its first elected body in 1972. The National Awami Party won the majority of the seats in Baluchistan and started making noises about state rights. In 1973, it was clear to the NAP that Baluchistan was the least developed province with the majority of civil and military bureaucracy coming from Punjab. They, quite correctly, saw this as a colonial exploitation. The discovery of natural gas reserves at Sui had made the area incredibly vital to Pakistan and Iran’s developmental programs. The refusal by the Bhutto’s central government to allow NAP internal autonomy escalated a tense situation into an outright revolt. Bhutto dismissed the Baluchistan assembly and re-instituted Governor’s rule. The Baluchi nationalists launched an all-out military resistance. From 1973-1978, roughly 60,000 Baluchi tribesmen and militia have faced off against the Pakistani army. Iran, eager to quell any similar uprising in its bordering area, has contributed airforce and personnel to the Pakistani efforts. They bombarbed Baluchi villages into submission. Bhutto’s ouster, via Zia’s military coup, forced a calm onto the situation as Zia launched into his One Pakistan Through Islam program. The Afghanistan war, the Iranian revolution and the Zia’s policies made Baluchistan into an island of outsider activity. US/UN aid for Afghani refugees poured into the metropolitan areas. During the 90s, the Benazir/Nawaz Sharif governments did little for Baluchistan as the Baluchi nationalist parties floundered in exile. After The General landed into power (get it?), he tried to foster new relationship with Baluchistan. Over the last three years, the Kachhi Canal, Mirani Dam, Gwadar Port, Makran Coastal Highway, Saindak Copper Project and Quetta Water Supply Scheme were announced by Islamabad. Over 300 percent increase was made in the national budget for development programs in Baluchistan. Yet, all these things have failed to materialize from paper into concrete. These latest incidents emerge from the same calls for Baluchistan’s equal share in the national programs and right to self-administer. The catalyst seems to be the assault on a female doctor, Dr. Shazia Khalid, by a gang of employees of the PPL at Sui. The company management, along with the local police, tried to quash the issue while the central authorities ignored all pleas to intervene. This caused the initial attack on the Sui facility. Nawab Akbar Bugti, the leader of Democratic National Party Baluchistan, clearly stated that the attack was borne out of frustration on the lack of action against the employees who did the assault and was NOT a nationalist struggle for freedom by the tribals. The General, on the other hand, is going to play this as another internal/extrenal threat to Pakistan and seems determined to carry out a military response. His pointed reference to the 1973 uprising is meant to warn the Baluchi tribals that he will not negotiate on his terms. Today’s actions by the tribals and the military response in Baluchistan can be understood within the context of the acrimonious central-regional relationship in Pakistan. The rights of states, the rights of minorities, the rights of individuals are all negotiated within the vaccum of Islamabad military power-brokers. Having no access to that, the aggrieved parties find no alternative except violent struggle. The history of MQM, of Sindh, of Waziristan and, of Baluchistan provide ample attestation to that reality. I hate to say it again but here it goes: there is no way out except a democratically elected and constituted assembly that will re-imagine Pakistan as a federation with a secular and civil Constitution at the helm.

NOTE:- THE ARTICLE IS DITTO COPY FROM WWW.CHAPATIMYSTERY.COM

P M IN BALUCHISTAN

A lot of hue and cry is been raised by the opposition and media, over the baluchis -tan issue . Opposition is again raising demanding , resignation from the PM . THE ISSUE

The whole thing began with the joint statement of india-pak issued at Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt),at the 15th NAM summit. the chief point of guidelines were The prime ministers 'considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations' and agreed that the foreign secretaries should 'meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers' who would meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Both leaders agreed that that terrorism is the main threat to both countries.' In response to the PM's call to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani stated that they would 'do everything in its power in this regard', that it had given an updated status dossier on investigations into 26/11, and that it sought additional information/evidence. PM said that the dossier was under review. the comment is by a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan and former deputy national security adviso (Comment: The PM's demand was, unfortunately, minimalist. It was restricted only to seeking satisfaction on 26/11 with no call for dismantling the infrastructure of terror or even an assurance, as given by Pakistan in January 2004, that the territory under its control would not be used for terrorist attacks against India. Pakistan's response was also minimalist and not even in the nature of a cast iron guarantee that those responsible for 26/11 would be brought to justice. Moreover, the ball is now in India's court, in respect of 26/11, as we are yet to respond to the dossier given to us). Both prime ministers agreed that they 'will share in real time credible information on any future terrorist threats'. Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that 'Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas'. (Comment: This is the first time that an India-Pakistan joint statement hints at Indian involvement in Baluchistan and in 'other areas'. It is myopic to see no harm in this as it equates India with Pakistan as a perpetrator of terror. The international community, which hitherto was convinced of our bona fides on this account will now begin to have doubts. Finally, this will be used to discredit the Baluchistan freedom struggle and harsher measures against it by the Pakistani authorities are on the cards. * Both the prime ministers recognised that 'dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed'. The PM added that India was ready to discuss with Pakistan all issues 'including all outstanding issues'. 'Prime Minister Singh reiterated India's interest in a stable, democratic, Islamic Republic of Pakistan'. (Comment: It ill behoves the prime minister of a secular country to espouse an interest in the religious labelling of any State. What would be his position if tomorrow the democratic forces in Pakistan decide that it should be a secular state?

The thing to which most people are concluding is that it is case of bad drafting. Also some sees it as result of american pressure .Also the delayed support to Manmohan singh by the question raises suspicion that congress , may not be too happy with his statement.

THE PM REPLY IN PARLIAMENT :EXCERPTS

An interpretation has been sought to be given to the Joint Statement that we will continue to engage in a composite dialogue whether Pakistan takes action against terrorism or not. This is not correct. The Joint Statement emphasized that action on terrorism cannot be linked to dialogue. Pakistan knows very well that with terrorism being such a mortal and global threat, no civilized country can set terms and conditions for rooting it out. It is an absolute and compelling imperative that cannot be dependent on resumption of the composite dialogue. In the Joint Statement itself, the two sides have agreed to share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats. When I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about terrorism from Pakistan, he mentioned to me that many Pakistanis thought that India meddled in Balochistan. I told him that we have no interest in destabilizing Pakistan nor do we harbour any ill intent towards Pakistan. We believe that a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan living in peace with its neighbours is in our own interest. I told him then, and I say it here again, that we are not afraid of discussing any issue of concern between the two countries. If there are any misgivings, we are willing to discuss them and remove them. I said to him that I had been told by the leadership of Pakistan several times that Indian Consulates in Afghanistan were involved in activities against Pakistan. This is totally false. We have had Consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad for 60 years. Our Consulates perform normal diplomatic functions and are assisting in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, where we have a large aid programme that is benefiting the common people of Afghanistan. But we are willing to discuss all these issues because we know that we are doing nothing wrong. I told Prime Minister Gilani that our conduct is an open book. If Pakistan has any evidence, and they have not given me any and no dossier has been given, we are willing to look at it because we have nothing to hide.

see balochistan issue

BHARTI AIRTEL AND MTN

MAY 2008

BHART AIRTEL and MTN sat down to ink a deal .which would have created world 6 largest mobile company, with with a network of 130-million subscribers -- 68-million from MTN and 62-million from Bharti -- that would dominate two of the world's fastest-growing cellular markets, India and Africa.Bharti proposed buying MTN at R165-175 per share, which would have valued the Johannesburg listed company at $41bn-$44bn. It would have set a record for a cross border acquisition by an Indian company.

However, after intense negotiations, MTN began to worry that a takeover of one of South Africa's most successful post-apartheid companies would be politically unacceptable. It proposed that Bharti's main shareholders instead swap their stakes for stock in MTN. This would have made Bharti an MTN subsidiary - a proposal the Indian company said on Saturday would have "severely compromised" it. So the talk was not able to walk.

THE RCOM DRAMA

After the talks with bharti failed , Rcom come into the picture .It agreed to the subsidiary thing , but it has its own share of troubles due to brothers fight(ambanis). So , even that failed .If the deal had been done,then the combination of Reliance and MTN could put the merged entity into the top tier of telecoms groups, which include China Mobile, the world's largest mobile operator by market capitalisation, and Vodafone, the largest wireless company by revenue.

MITTAL'S PROBLEM ANIL'S COMFORT

The reliance and mtn preferred model was on a reverse take-over, under which Mr Ambani could swap most or all of his 66 per cent stake in Reliance for a stake in MTN of up to 34.9 per cent. Under Indian rules, MTN would also have to make a tender offer for a further 20 per cent of Reliance. That arrangement would be acceptable to Mr Ambani because he would end up by far the largest single shareholder in the enlarged group - the existing leading investors in the South African company would collectively hold only 23-24 per cent after the deal. Mr Mittal would not have enjoyed the same comfort for two reasons. First his family owns a 26 per cent stake in Bharti Airtel, according to analysts at JPMorgan, and would have ended up with a smaller stake in the enlarged group. He also would have had trouble with Indian rules restricting foreign ownership to 74 per cent of telecoms companies. Bharti is already 65 per cent foreign-owned compared with just 10 per cent of Reliance.

TALKS RENEWED IN CHANGED SCENARIO

Bharti is now the third largest single-market operator in the world, after China Mobile and China Unicom, while South Africa-headquartered MTN is one of the MEA region’s strongest players, with operations in 22 countries. Combined, the two carriers would rank third in the world in subscriber terms, behind China Mobile and Vodafone. The proposed deal would see Bharti acquire 49 per cent of MTN and MTN acquire 36 per cent of Bharti, of which 25 per cent would be held by MTN with the remainder held directly by MTN shareholders, Bharti said in a statement.

Still everything is hazy , will this time sunil mittal will be able to ink the deal is yet to be seen

WHY INDIANS PLAYERS NOT GIVING WADA TO WADA

The current power tussle going between BCCI and ICC+WADA is getting bigger day by day. Can ICC beat BCCI using WADA as its bramastra.The recent appointment of WADA by ICC to follow the anti-doping laws prevalent in sports world now a days , is givin nightmares to players.

THE UNACCEPTABLE ISSUES

It requires players nominated by the sport's parent body to submit to random testing. These players have to inform ICC at the start of every three-month period of a location and time that they will be available for an hour each day for testing. A player needs to update the nodal officer on any changes in schedule either online or through SMS. If the player is not present at the specified location and time, a 'strike' will be recorded against his/her name. Three strikes would mean suspension for up to 2 years from the game.

THE INDIAN SIDE

BCCI AND INDIAN PLAYERS BELEIVE the clause with regard to whereabouts of cricketers is unreasonable for three reasons. First, some (Indian) cricketers have security cover, and when you have such cover, you cannot disclose your whereabouts to a third person. Second, the privacy of individuals cannot be invaded. Third, the Indian constitution guarantees every citizen his privacy .The indian players are not against the dope-test, even BCCI is saying that for random testing it can call players anytime told by WADA

THE HORRORS

1)The most likely thing on the cards is that BCCI has to comply to the norms.
2)The WADA has told the cricketers that they run the risk of being banned for at least a year and maximum of two if they stick to their stand and do not fill the 'whereabouts' form. Missing the deadline thrice in a span of 18 months means an automatic ban , and indian players had missed one deadline 31 july
3)Cricket can never be a part of olympic and asian games , untill and unless it all playing nations abide wada norms.

THE AMBANIS RIVALRY PART 2

2009

The current ongoing bone of contention is the supply of gas from the k g basin by mukesh's RIL to anil's led reliance natural resouces. The battle has taken a new turn with petroleum industry also coming in between.

BONE OF CONTENTION

In 2005 , when the agreement was reached between the brothers there was a clause , which used to saying that mukesh has to supply " 28 million cubic meters of gas per day to his brother's company Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL) at 2.34 dollars per million British thermal unit (mBtu) for 17 years". now after 4 years the goverment fixed price is 4.21$ per mBtu.

Mukesh is saying that he will only sell gas to anil after the goverment nod , as goverment is sole responsible in establishing price of gas. Anil is claiming it to be preposterous , claming that mukesh R energy have enough gas left with him after providing to goverment own plants that it can sell it whatever cost he chooses

Though the matter had been put before the mumbai high court , which told mukesh to respect family clause

THE GOVERMENT ANGLE

The petroleum ministry is saying that natural resoures are goverment and people's property , therefore it is not for brothers to decide about price,it is demanding the supreme court to quash the family pact.Energy analysts worry the fight over the gas price could cast a shadow over the next round of the government’s “new exploration licensing policy”. Oil companies are allotted exploration blocks under the condition they are allowed to exploit any discoveries at market prices.

IMPORTANT FACT "Assuming 80 mn cubic meters per day of gas supplies for a year as a whole, India could save $ 8.3 bn annually," Moran Stanley said in a research note on RIL for its clients. RIL, which is currently producing 31-32 mmcmd, is likely to touch 80 mmcmd in next six months. This peak output could replace close to 26 million tons of crude oil, which is as much as ONGC produces domestically, or about 17 per cent of current demand in India, the report said. "We estimate 20 mmcmd of gas would go to the fertilizer industry and most of the rest to the power industry. This implies that as much as 13 million tons or 50 per cent of the country's fertilizer production, and about 12,500 MW of power, or 8-9 per cent of overall power produced in the country, can run on RIL's gas." RIL stated gas production from KG-D6 fields on April 2 and has signed contracts with 15 fertilizer plants to sell close to 15 mmcmd gas. Additionally, it has contracted over 25 mmcmd to 19 power plants and 3.3 mmcmd to steel plants. Morgan Stanley report stated that 5 mmcmd more gas could go to fertilizer plants and identified power plants that can take more of KG-D6 gas.

THE AMBANIS RIVALRY

2004-2005

It was a shock for the corporate world and shareholders , when the feud between ambanis siblings came in public glare. To settle the ongoing dispute among brothers k v kamath , then icici chairman proposed a 40:30:30 ratio . According to which the whole property will be divided among the brothers in 30:30 ratio , and the rest 40 percent to mother and sisters.

. The result was

mukesh ambani got reliance industries and ipcl (indian petroleum corporation ltd), he renamed it to RIL.
anil ambani got reliance infocomm ,reliance energy and reliance capital,he renamed it to ADAG.
At the time of divide reliance has over 97,000 crore in revenue

2008 rivalry resurfaces

Again the brothers were at loggerheads , when RCOM anil ambani company went to ink deal with MTN , south african giant telecom company.After the failed talks of MTN and AIRTEL (read the article BHARTI_AIRTEL and MTN), RCOM tried to get with MTN , thus becoming a major player both in india and abroad, but mukesh ambani led RIL, raised the issue of RIGHT TO FIRST REFUSAL,which he said was in family contract during the amicable settlement of the dispute.

RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.

According to it suppose MR A has this right over MR B company , MR B wants to havedeal with XYZ, then it is possible only when MR A first refuses to ink deal with XYZ . If without MR A refusal ,MR B goes ahead then he have to face law.

Later on deal was scrapped , with both MTN and RCOM jointly refering to some legal issues. the battle continues see the ambanis rivalry part 2 .

ARTICLE 377

Most of the newspaper are abounded by the news and images of the gay parades. Suddenly number 377 has assumed significance. Numerological it reduces to 8 which has both masculine and feminine qualities. Also in bible it signifies new begining.

Both of these go hand in hand , as far as GAYS are concerned.Article 377 states that "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Now the people in favour of it had two main arguments
Religious:- which has nothing to do as far as law in concerned.It is on the morality of the person IT HELPS TO PUNISH PAEDOPHILES:- but nowhere in the article children are mentioned .

Till date it has been generally misused to harass homosexuals.We can have a seperate law to punish padophiles.Also the IPC indian penal code was framed in 1860.At that time our society was backward and more in the claws of supersition. The britishers who were chief architect of it , has themselves accepted homsexuaity.

Also it is no longer a taboo . Brokeback Mountain and Milk the oscar winner movies dealt with the same topic.We have to remeber that when blacks and harijans had fight for equality same relegious dogmas had proved to be impediments.