Saturday, April 12, 2008

AMWJU pained | Meet on Tipaimukh

AMWJU pained

The All manipur Working Journa-lists’ Union (AMWJU) has taken a serious view of the charges levelled by Zomi Students’ Federation (ZSF) against The Sangai Express in connection with series of report published in the said paper with regard to alleged fund misappro-priation in the Power Department. In a meeting of journalists held today at Manipur press Club, all journalists present viewed the stand of the ZSF as an infringement on the freedom of expression, said an AMWJU release adding that if any party feels aggrieved or has a different opinion on any matter appearing in newspapers, they may use the same medium to air their opinion or seek legal redressal. AMWJU also urged the ZSF to retract/withdraw the threat/ultimatum served to the Sangai Express.

Meet on Tipaimukh

After inspecting the site where the controversial Tipaimukh Multipurpose Project is proposed to be set up in connection with issuing forest and envi-ronmental clearance, the members of the Expert Appraisal Committee led by former Union Power Secretary P Abraham today held a meeting with the State Govt officials at Hotel Imphal. The 8-member team of the Expert Appraisal Committee yesterday visited Tipaimukh and Kaimai ahead of the meeting with the officials of the State Govt at Hotel Imphal here today. The meeting also clubbed together with the 13th sitting of the Committee. On leaving Imphal, the Committee would be submitting a report in connection with their inspection visit at the site of the proposed project to the Centre. The visiting Committee members would be leaving Imphal for Delhi tomorrow after sight seeing at Loktak Lake tomorrow morning.

ATSUM urges Govt

IMPHAL, Apr 12: Highlighting the urgency of the famine like situation in Tipaimukh sub-division and other parts of Churachandpur district following mautam phenomenon, the ATSUM has urged upon the State Government to explain the measures it has taken to tide over the harsh situation.

While expressing shock over the death of 11 children in four villages in Tipaimukh division due to the famine like situation as reported in the media, ATSUM informed that two more infants have also died in Lungthulien village.

A press release issued by the ATSUM identified the dead infants as Lalditsak (3 months) s/o Rosanghlei and Lalnunsiem (10 months) d/o Ramropui.

Moreover, three children in Lungthulien and ten others in Leisen village are suffering serious illness at present. Asking the Department concerned if it had not received any official report on the prevailing situation, ATSUM warned that it will shut down the office of Chief Medical Officer, Chura-chandpur in case the Gover- nment fails to come up with some concrete measures by April 15.

Moreover, the office of the Medical Directorate at Imphal will be held responsible for what is happening in Churachandpur and other districts of the State.

It also sought attention of all the NGOs, pressure groups and individuals towards the harsh situation being endured by some section of people in the State.

Super Speciality Depts on RIMS’ menu

By Our Staff Reporter

IMPHAL, Apr 12: Altoge-ther ten new super specia- lity departments will be opened in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) Imphal within the current 11th five year plan period.

Speaking to reporters here today, RIMS Director L Fimate said that the upcoming super speciality depart- ments include Cardiology, Urology, Plastic Surgery and Neurology.

In addition to opening a nursing college and an upto date Out Patient Department (OPD), the annual intake capacity of MBBS course will also be increased to 150 from the existing 100. The existing hostels for RIMS students will also be upgraded, Dr Fimate said.

The proposed pro-gramme to upgrade and equip RIMS with latest health care facilities was approved by Union Health Minister Ambumani Rama-dos during a meeting of the RIMS’ Board of Directors held recently at New Delhi, conveyed Fimate who also attended the meeting.

He further stated that there will be no problem for land to modernise and enpand RIMS as the institute has already acquired 310 acres of land.

To make a spot assessment ahead of the development programme, a team of the Union Health Ministry headed by Additional Director General S Agarwal arrived at Imphal today.

A team of experienced doctors from top medical institutions like the AIIMS will be visiting the State to help set up super speciality departments and courses in RIMS on April 15, conveyed the RIMS Director.

He also sought cooperation from all the people to develop RIMS to the same level as AIIMS.

Once the super speciality departments are opened in RIMS, it will be big relief for the people of Manipur who have been spending huge amount of money in treating complicated diseases and ailments in well-equipped hospitals located outside the State, Dr Fimate exuded.

On the other hand, a memorandum submitted to the visiting Additional Director General (Health) by social worker Kambam Seityajit pointed out that seven ventilators of the ICU and the CT scan machine are out of order since a long time back.

Even as the RIMS has been brought under the Union Ministry of Health, there is no full-fledged Gastrointestinal (GI) Surgery department till date.

Pointing out several loop-holes and drawbacks in the administration and functioning of RIMS, Seityajit asked as to why there are no official operation theatre days and separate wards for GI surgery till now.

He further sought attention of the Additional Di- rector General (Health) on exorbitant fees charged by private hospitals in Mani-pur whose daily charges range from Rs 350 to Rs 5,000. He asked whether there is no regulatory au-thority to control these exorbitant fees charged by private hospitals.

Mentioning two different cases in which two cancer patients reportedly went back home untreated from RIMS because they were poor, the memorandum sought immediate attention of authority concerned to streamline the administration and functioning of RIMS.

Eminent Persons Send Open Letter to Prime Minister to reconsider the Foreign Contributions (Regulation Bill), 2006

[Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative: Tuesday April 8, 2008]

Several eminent people have expressed alarm at the provisions of the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Bill, 2006. The proposed legislation was first introduced by the UPA Government in the Rajya Sabha in December 2006. It is likely to be introduced again in the next session of Parliament after being vetted by the Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs.

In an open letter to the Prime Minister signatories to the letter Mr B.G Verghese, Dr M.S Swaminathan, Mr Soli Sorabjee, Mr Fali S. Nariman, Mr Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Justice Ruma Pal, Admiral R.H Tahiliani, Ms Sunita Narain, Mr Alok Mukapadhyay, Mr Jagadananda, Mr Bhaskar Rao, Mr Ashok Khosla and Mr Nitin Desai, have asked the government to reconsider introduction of the Bill on the grounds that it creates a highly restrictive and discriminatory regulatory regime for civil society organisations receiving foreign contributions for their work.

The Bill comes at a time when India's voluntary or non-profit sector is being celebrated the world over for its achievements in various fields including the right to information and environmental protection. A significant number of NGOs in the country receive funds from well respected international donor organisations that fund similar initiatives in other countries. Notably, the Bill runs completely counter to the National Policy on the Voluntary Sector 2006 which pledges to encourage, enable and empower voluntary organisations, and lists enabling them to legitimately mobilise necessary financial resources from India and abroad as a specific objective. However, in reality the new law would give executive authorities vast discretion - without adequate checks and balances - to clamp down on foreign funding for NGOs and thereby prevent their functioning. NGOs critical of government policies will be particularly vulnerable under the proposed legislation.

The open letter ends with the following appeal: "In the interests of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of speech, expression and association, we urge the Union Cabinet to reconsider passing the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2OO6. Enactment of such a Bill can undermine democratic space and the independence of the voluntary sector in India which presently provides.

Text of the letter:


Dr Manmohan Singh
Honourable Prime Minister of India

Subject: Open letter to reconsider the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2006

Respected Prime Minister

We are sending you this open letter to express our deep concern at the restrictive nature of the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Bill, 2006, approved by your Cabinet. The Bill runs counter to the National Policy on the Voluntary Sector that is pledged to encourage, enable and empower voluntary organisations. In contrast, the Bill permits broad executive discretion, allows subjective satisfaction in decision-making and provides limited recourse to procedural safeguards.

The present Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the Prevention of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 already provide a robust framework to prevent misuse of funds or their diversion towards anti-national or terrorist activities.

We have reservations on the following grounds:

• The aim of the Bill, as stated in the preamble is to prohibit the acceptance and use of foreign contribution for activities detrimental to 'national interest', a subjective and malleable term, open to capricious interpretation. The purpose of any legislation should be to minimise not increase room for executive discretion.

• The Bill greatly increases executive discretion by prescribing a broad list of grounds to refuse a certificate of registration. Some grounds are indeterminate such as the likelihood of diversion of funds for 'undesirable' purposes or not having undertaken 'meaningful' activity or not having prepared a meaningful project for the 'benefit' of the people.

• The Bill requires the certificate of registration to be renewed every five years. Since no time limit is prescribed, organisations considered inconvenient by the government of the day may find themselves subject to motivated procedural delays.

• The Bill gives the executive, wide discretionary powers to cancel a certificate of registration in the `public interest'. This is too broad, and open to subjective interpretation. Cancellation of the certificate should only be permitted upon breach of specific legal obligations.

• The Bill vests executive authorities with additional powers to inspect, search and seize the property of voluntary organisations without full and complete adherence to the procedural safeguards laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This has potential for undue harassment and unnecessary interference, which can negatively impact the independence of voluntary organisations.

• The Bill permits unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of an organisation by putting a cap of 50% on 'administrative expenses', a term which is not defined. This provision can seriously impair the work of voluntary organisations committed primarily to research and analysis.

• The Bill seeks to exercise undue control on the financial affairs of voluntary organisations wishing to build a corpus fund by prohibiting investment of foreign contribution or its proceeds in 'speculative' businesses. Since the term is not defined, it remains unclear what investments are considered part of speculative business.

• The Bill arbitrarily prohibits certain categories of individuals from receiving foreign contributions. Individuals against whom prosecution for any offence is pending are debarred, in violation of the presumption of innocence. Additionally, persons convicted of any offence - however minor or unrelated to the legitimate concerns of the government to prevent misuse of funds - are prohibited from receiving foreign contributions.

• The Bill restricts the capacity of voluntary organisations to engage the services of organisations and individuals on a consultancy basis. Transfer of foreign contribution to anyone without a certificate to receive the same is prohibited under the Bill. This needs clarification to ensure that bona fide honoraria or consultancy fees are not precluded.

In the interests of safeguarding fundamental freedoms of speech, expression and association, we urge the Union Cabinet to reconsider passing the proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill, 2006. Enactment of such a Bill can undermine democratic space and the independence of the voluntary sector in India which presently provides significant support to the people of India. This surely cannot be the Government's intention.

With our highest regards,

1. B.G Verghese, Chairperson, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi
2. Nitin Desai, Former UN Undersecretary General
3. Jagananda, Centre for Youth and Social Development
4. Ashok Khosla. Development Alternatives
5. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Centre for Policy Research
6. Alok Mukapadhyay, Voluntary Health Association of India
7. Sunita Narain, Centre for Science and Environment
8. Fali S. Nariman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
9. Justice Ruma Pal, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
10. Bhaskar Rao, Centre for Media Studies
11. Soli S. Sorabjee, Former Attorney General of India and Senior Advocate Supreme Court of India
12. M.S Swaminathan, M.S Swaminathan Research Foundation
13. Admiral R.H Tahiliani, Transparency International India


N. Tawna ASI in kaisang

Lamka, April-11: Manipur Excise department in amau department a mi 36te ASI ding in promotion pia a, tuate lak ah Non-Naga singtangmite lak ah Mr. N. Tawna Paite of New Lamka leng telkha hi. Amaute posting na mun ding bel bawl fel hinailou hi.

MPHC a MD in Singngat pha

Lamka, April 11: Manipur Police Housing Corporation a Managing Director Mr. Samananda Singh, IPS, IGP in tuni zing dak 10:00 vel in Lamka hongpha in Singngat khua leng pha hi. Aman Singngat khua a MPHC tungtawn a Police sation kibawl etkhiatna va nei hi.

Mualsuang dohna leh Ex-gratia hawmna neiding

Lamka, April 11: Zou Youth Organisation, GHQ saina in hongtung ding April 12, 2008 sunma dak 11:00 in Ngasuan Lui ah apaisa January 18, 2008 a huai lui a Truck tuahsia a si mi 20 te theihgigena dia Mualsuang kidoh honkhiatna neih hidng hi.

Hiai suangdoh pen Mr. Chinzakhup, President, UZO HQ in honkhiatna neiding a Rev. Kapsuanthang in latna neiding hi. Hiai hun ah site sungkuante kiangah ex-gratia hawmna neih ahihding banah liamte kiangah panpihna piak hiding hi.

Flying Squad team in Exam en khia

Lamka, April-11: Manipur University apan Flying squad team in tuni zinglam dak 11:00 in Lamka hong pha in Churachandpur Govt. College leh Lamka College a BA-I & III yrs. final Exam om lel hong enkhia uhi. Exam Hall a phakna munte uah khenkhat body tanpha uh check ua, himahleh matkhiak bel neilou uhi.

DC Imphal a meeting ah tel

Lamka, April-11: Sumant Singh IAS DC/Churachandpur tuni’n Imphal ah hoh a, sunnung lam in Power Minister Office ah Mautam toh kisai meeting nei uhi. Hiai hun ah CCpur District apan MLA teng leng tel uhi.

Sawmpau Memorial Football Tournament Closing om ding

Lamka, April-11: Ngathal Youth Club leh SAHARA/Churachandpur kithuah a (L) Sawmpau Memorial Football Tournament Ngathal Play Ground a neih a om hunkhakna (Closing Function) April 14, 2008 sun dak 12:30 in om ding hi. Huai hun ah Sumant Singh IAS DC/Churanchandpur Chief Guest apang in khak ding hi.

Heart Specialist in en ding

Lamka, April-11: Dr.Th. Sachin Deba Singh MD. DM Cardiologist (Heart Specialist) in zingchiang zingkal dak 9:00 apan in Zenhang Lamka Rengkai Road a Pu Khup Medicare ah Lungtang lam toh kisai buaina neite en ding a, lunglutte’n ngaihven poimoh hi.

Nungak Camp zou

Lamka, April-11: Evangelical Synod Church (ESC) Chiengkonpang Biakinn ah Numei Camp April 7, 2008 apan a neih uh tunitak in zou siang uhi. Huai ah Evan P. Thawnkhansuan thugenpi in pang a, nungak 36 val tel in lawhching mahmah hi.

Govt. Office ni 2 suty kizom

Lamka, April-11: Government Office leh Institution te ni 2 suty kizom ding a, huai bel April 12, 2008 2nd Saturday ahihban ah a zing Pathianni ahihziakin suty ding uhi.

SPF term nihna kumkhat ching nawnta

IMPHAL, April 11: Manipur a sorkal bawl Secular Proressive Front (SPF) in term khatna bubittak a a paisuakpih nung in, term nihna leng kum khat bang lentou dinmun suakta hi.

Hichibang a SPF lohchinna toh kisai in, DIPR saina nuai ah, April 14, 2008 sunnung dak 3 in State Guest House Conference Hall ah, ‘Releasing function of a Coloured Booklet on the Achievements of One Year of the 2nd Term of the SPF Government’ kichi om ding hi.

Hiai hun ah, vaidawn thugenna IPR Minister T.N. Haokip in nei ding a, Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh in booklet siansuahna nei in thugenna hun zang ding hi. IPR Commissioner P. Bharat Singh, IAS in kipahthugenna hun zang ding hi.

JAC in CM ah memorandum pia

IMPHAL, April 11: Thoubal district a Kakching Police Station huamsung a, Lousipat a meltheihlouhte’n hehpihna bei a meithai khat, Inaothoibi @ Shantibala (27) kichi April 9, 2008 zan a a thahna uh toh kisai in, ‘JAC against the brutal killing of (L) Inaothoibi @ Shantibala’ kichi Meira Paibi leh Club te’n bawlkhia uhi.

Hiai pawl mi tamtakte tuni’n Chief Minister kiang a memorandum pe ding in kuan ua, himahleh, Police te’n Sanjenthong lei bul a dal in, JAC palai mi 8 vel CM kiang a memorandum pelut ding in paisuaksak uhi.

JAC in CM kiang a memorandum a piaklutna ah, tualthatte April 14, 2008 tan a matkhiak leh gawtna piak ding, Inaothoibi in a nutsiat Robindro (6) leh Nanao (3) a dia govt. in ‘Ashti’ hun ma a Rs 5 lakh a piak ding, huchi ahihkeileh siluang laklouh ding in taklang uhi. JAC palaite gendan in, tualthatna toh kisai a kigolh hidia muanmoh nei mahle uh matkhiak bel omnailou hidan in thutut kingah ahi.

AMSU in realization day zang ding

IMPHAL, April 11: All Manipur Students’ Union HQ saina in Pishum Chingamacha ah April 17, 2008 chiang in 38th Realisation Day zat hiding hi. Hiai mun a pakvui piakna zoh ahihchiang in, HAU ground ah mipi kikhopna om ding hi.

Manipur apat gamdangmi hawlkhiakna dia 1980 kum apat All Manipur Students’ Union in movement a neihlai ua Police-te thautang leng in a khaklup Potsangbam Lukhoi leh Huidrom Lokendro theihgigena ding in AMSU in 1981 apat kum teng in April 17 pen ‘Mikap Thokpa Numit’ (Realisation Day) chih minvuah in ana zangtou hi.

AMSU in gamdangmi hawlkhiakna dia movement a neih toh kisai in govt. toh 1980 leh 1994 in MoU gelh hitamahleh, sepsuah omlou hidan in leng thutut kingah hi.

District Level Convention on HIV/AIDS

IMPHAL, April 11: UNAIDS sensakna nuai a Manipur Legislators Forum on HIV/AIDS saina in, Bishnupur district sung a Kiyamba Nongsang Sanglen ah April 12, 2008 in ‘One day District Level Convention on HIV/AIDS of the elected representatives & civil societies’ kichi om ding hi.

Hiai hun ah Khuallian in MLFA a Chairman leh Speaker Dr. S. Budhichandra Singh pang ding a, President di’n Bishnupur district sung a MLA N. Loken, Govindas Konthoujam, N. Mangi, T. Mangibabu, M. Manindra leh Dr. I. Ibohanbi pang ding uhi.

Cultural Traditon toh kisai in workshop

IMPHAL, April 11: Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, New Delhi leh Manipur Film Development Corporation Limited kithuah in, April 12, 2008 zinglam dak 10 apat Hotel Nirmala Conference Hall ah, ‘Workshop on Implications of the Trans Asian Highway on the Cultural Traditions of Manipur’ kichi neih hiding hi. Hiai hun ah Khuallian in Padmashree R.K. Jhaljit pang ding a, Functional President in Lokendra Arambam, Historian & Scholar pang ding hi.

Consultative meeting ah tel

IMPHAL, April 11: Shillong a Pinewood Hotel ah zan in 13th Finance Commission Consultative Meeting om a, huai hun ah Chairman in Dr. Bijoy Karkar pang a, Manipur University apat Economist ngen, Prof L. Tombi, Prof. Amar Yumnam, Prof. E. Bijoykumar leh Prof. Ch. Priyoranjan kihel uh hidan in thutut kingah hi.

Committee Chairman ding guang

IMPHAL, April 11: Manipur Legislative Assembly a Speaker Dr. S. Budhichandra Singh in 2008-09 sung a Committee tuamtuam 3 a Chairman ding in MLA 3 guang hi. Amaute ahihleh O. Joy, Chairman on Public Accounts, Bijoy Koijam, Chairman on Estimates leh I. Hemochandra, Chairman on Public Undertakings hi uh hi’n zan in Assembly Secretary in thusuah bawl hi.

National Dedication Celebration

IMPHAL, April 11: 158th Death Anniversary Commenmoration for Maharaja Narasingh, National Dedication Celebration Day, 2008 tuni’n Kangla Fort ah zat in om hi. Hiai hun Lok Sabha Inner MP Dr. T. Meinya, NEC Secretary R.K. Phalguni, MLA R.K. Anand leh E. Sonamani, IAS (retired) in uap ua, Prof. N. Joykumar, Manipur University in ‘Maharaja Narasingh in the welfare of Manipur. Is his message still relevant.’ chih toh kisai in thugenna hun zang hi.

Cabinet meeting ah thu tamtak luikhiak in om

IMPHAL, April 11: Tuni sunnung apat in Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh makaih in, CM Secretariat a Cabinet Hall ah, Cabinet meeting om a, tua hun ah Distric Council toh kisai banah ngaihtuah ding in thu tamtak luikhiak in om hi.

Thutut kingah dan in, cabinet meeting agenda dia luikhiakte bel, Draft Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Councils Ordinance, 2008, Revised Draft Business of the Govt. of Manipur (Allocation) 27th (Amendment) Rules, 2008, Extention of Terms of 26 Adhoc Appointments, Extension of Two Post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail from 1996-97 till 28/2/2009, Contractual Appointment of Key Staff Members for Establishment of State HQ Cell under Global Fund for AIDS Tuberculosis & Malaria of the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, Manipur, Amendment of Section 57(4) of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Setting up of the Manipur Information Technology Society, Engagement of N. Sanjoy Singh s/o (L) N. Yaima Singh, Ex-Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in the Office of the Public Prosecutor-cum-Govt. Advocate (HC) Manipur, Framing the rules namely The Devolution of Powers & Function to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (maintenance/Management of bus stands/terminus/way side amenity complex & collection of Parking fees) Rules, 2007, Engagement of Staff on Contract Basis in the Office of the Public Prosecutor-cum-Govt. Advocate (HC) Manipur as recommended by Committee of Officers, Report of the Kwakeithel Akham Leikai Firing Inquiry Commission banah Schemes for Appointment & Promotion of Sports Persons hidan in thutut kingah hi.

NSCN-IM leh K kikaptuah: mi 4 si

IMPHAL, April 11: Muanhuaitak apat thutut kingah dan in, zan leh tuni zingkal baihtak tan in, Tamenglong district sung a NSCN-IM leh NSCN-K helpawlte kikaptuahna nasatak om a, tua ah cadre 4 in kaplup in om uhi.

Thutut kingah dan in, hiai bang kikaptuahna in maban a sawnlouhna ding khualna in, Tamenglong district HQ ah, khotang a Zeliangrong pawlpi tuamtuamte’n ‘red alert’ puang in, public curfew tanpha koih uhi.

Thutut kingan dan in, zan zinglam dak 9 ding vel in NSCN-K helpawl galvan hoihtak a kithuamte'n Buning khua a NP Bn, NSCN-IM omte bukap ua, tua ah naktak a kikaptuahna piang in, sunnung dak 3 tan vel kikaptuah uhi. Hiai mun ah NSCN-IM cadre khat kaplup in om a, NSCN-K te’n bel NSCN-IM cadre 4 leh 5 vel leng naktak a liam ding in genmahle uh, NSCN-IM lamte’n nial uhi.

Hichibang a NSCN-IM’ panmun khat bukap ahihnung in, NSCN-IM lamte’n leng NSCN-K cadre 3 amat nung ua tuni zinglam dak 5:20 ding vel in Duigailong khua a JNV kibawllel complex sung a kaplum uh hidan in thutut kingah hi.

Hiai kikaptuahna a si NSCN-IM cadre bel ‘Sgt. Major’ Senreisang (28) hi a, huailou in NSCN-K cadre 3 thah a omte bel ‘Lt.’ Kaithuanang Panmei (28), ‘Pvt.’ Gianthanglung (19) leh ‘Major’ Zachariah (25) hi uh hi’n thutut kingah hi.

PC Ram’ tapa in a pa sihna inn veh ding


Food Corporation of India (FCI) nuai a Executive Director, a phamsa PC Ram’ tapa Praveen Goutan in tukha tawplam chiang in, ULFA helpawlte toh police-te kikaptuahna a a pa’ sihna mun, Kamrup district a Kamalpur Police Station huamsung a Borka Paneetema khua hong pha ding hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

PC Ram ahihleh nikum April 17 a ULFA helpawlte hidia muanmohte’n Guwahati a GS Road apat a pimang uh hi a, kha 2 vingveng a nung sui ahihnung in police te’n July 11 in Borka Paneetema khua a ULFA helpawlte khut a om ahihdan theikhia ua, a nitak mah a hutkhiak a sawmna lam ua kikaptuahna a kaplup khak a om ahi hi.

Gauhati High Court a senior advocate Nakibur Zaman in a genna ah, July 11 nitak a a pa kaplup a a omna, Gobinda Deka’ inn Praveen in pha ding a, himahleh, a hun leh ni kichian bel theih hinailou ahihdan gen hi. Praveen ahihleh tu’n USA ah omlel a, a pa suunna dan a a huai khua a sahkho thil, program khat neih sawm a, Guwahati ah leng a pa sih nung a thu-le-la kivei tamtak omte hilhchian ding in thuthaksaite leng kimuhpih ding ahihdan thusuak in taklang hi.

Damdawi tang lakh 1 Shillong tung


Meghalaya ah meningitis natna hiileng patauhhuailua hikei mahleh Meghalaya district 7 a health centre-te a hawm ding damdawi Cyprofloxin tang lakh 1 sorkar in a leikhiakte Sintawpni a Shillong tung ngal hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

Meningitis natna hiileng uanglua hikei mahleh awl in pung deuhdeuh a, Health Sevices Director K.H. Lakiang in a genna ah, hiai natna nei theihbeh in omzel mahleh a kal laklak chauh a om ahihna ah patauhhuai hinai hiallou ahihdan gen hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

K.H. Lakiang in a genzelna ah, tunitan in meningitis natna nei hidia muanmoh mi 186 omta a, mi dang 36-te ahihleh meningitis natna nei mah uh hidan a chetna omta ahihdan leh hiai natna ziak a sihna tan hial ana tuak bel mi khat chauh ompan ahihdan gen hi. Meningitis natna nei hidia muanmoh Jaintia Hills district ah tampen tadihlai a, hiai natna ziak a si hidia muanmohte ahihleh meningitis natna toh kibang mahmah malaria ziak hizaw dan in Lakiang in gen hi.

District Health and Medical Officer (DHMO) Dr. S. Pohsnem in a genna ah, meningitis natna nei hidia muanmoh Jaintia Hills ah mi 70 om ua, huaite lak ah mi 4 in nei taktak ua, midang khat ahihleh sih leng sita hidan in gen hi. Huai banah, hiai natna kilohsawntheih meningitis ahihleh, Jaintia Hills sung ah leng Wahejer PHC apat tam diak hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

Tuabangkal ah, health official te’n mipite kiang ah pilvan ding dan tuamtuam a zaksak banuah, khosik sang, gawlna, ngawng khawm, luaksuak leh luate banah chithak khong neite’n damdawi inn kintak a naihpah ding in theihsakna bawl uhi. Huai banah, official te’n mipite kiang ah patauhna ding bangmah omlou ahihdan a hilhchetna ua, hiai natna a huntak leh a etkol ahihnak leh lauhhuai hilou ahihdan puang uh hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

Helte 2 kaplup in om: AR jawan 1 liam

IMPHAL, April 11 NNN

Bishnupur district sung a Kha-Potsangbam a Bishnupur district police commando-te toh Ningani zankim dak 12:20 ding vel a kikaptuahna ah helpawl a tel hidia muanmoh mi nih kaplup a om hidan in thusuak in taklang hi.

Kaplup a omte ahihleh Ng Dhanajit a.k.a. Ibomcha (32) s/o Mangi of Uripok Bachaspati Leikai, Imphal leh Robinson of Uripok Achom Leikai, Imphal hi ua, official source thusuak dungzui in hiai mi 2-te bel Activa (MN 01-9871) a kipua in police commando patrolling paite kap ua, commando te’n a thukna ua kaplup a om uh hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

Huai banah, kaplup a om mi nihte apat 9mm pistol khat, a tang 3, M20 pistol khat, a tang 4, mobile phone handset 1 banah People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) letterhead 10 muhsuah a om hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

Thudang khat ah, North AOC Imphal a Kekru Villa apat Imphal West district police commando te’n Sintawpni in Kuki National Army (KNA) member khat Lungan Haokip (46) s/o Jangluan Haokip of Sijang village, Senapati district mankhia ua, Imphal bial a sumdawngmite lak apat sum khon dia zat a om hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

Tuabangkal ah, Ukhrul district sung a Old Samtal bial ah 44th Assam Rifles jawan khat Sintawpni zingkal a IED bomb puak ah naktak in liam a, Senapati district a Leimakhong Military Hospital a etkol a om hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

UPDS in centre toh peace talks a neih CSKA in gum


United People Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) nungthuap in Karbi Anglong’ buainate kintak a suveng ding in Union Government kiang ah Civil Society of Karbi Anglong (CSKA) in ngen hi.

CSKA nuai a pawl tuamtuam 10 kigawmkhawmte’n Sintawpni a Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil kiang a memorandum a khiakna uah centre in Karbi mipite haksatna ngaihsaklou ahihdan Karbi Anglong mipite’n theisuah ahihdan uh taklang uhi.

Karbi Anglong mipite haksatna nelhsiah ahih nilouh a, UPDS toh kitheihsiamna piching kintak a bawl ahihkeileh hiamgamna, kithah-kimatna, pawl leh pawl kal a kidouna leh namkal buaina banah nuaina tuamtuam tungthei hidan in CSKA in a memorandum khiak ua taklang uh hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

Sorkar leh UPDS in peace talks a neih uh kipahpih mahmah mahleh, kum 6 kihouna neih ahihnung a leng bangmah a pianlouh poi a sakthu uh taklang kawm in kihouna neih nawn ahih hunhun chiang a gahsuah hoihtak a hon neih a lamet thu uh CSKA in a memorandum uah taklang uhi. UPDS leh central government in a 7veina di’n Sintawpni in kihouna pan ua, hiai hun ah Assam govt leng kihel hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

CSKA nuai a pawlpi tuamtuam kigawmkhawmte lak ah Somindar Karbi Amei, Karbi Lamel Amei, Karbi Students Association , Karbi Nemso Chingthur Asong, Karbi Re-Awakening Organisation (KRAO), Hemo Chettoy Gorkha Society (HCGS) banah KFA tel uh hi’n thusuak in taklang hi..

Vanman khan kiphinpih


Vanman khang toh kisai in BJP in India pumpi ah kiphinna chituamtuam pan a, huai dungzui in Guwahati ah leng BJP worker te’n Sintawpni in kiphinna nei ua, himahleh, chiangpum zang zen a police te’n hawldalh uh hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.

BJP leader bangzah hiamte makaih in BJP worker te’n Guwahati a Ulubari apat Kamrup (Metro) Deputy Commissioner’ office tan lamlian zuih sawm in kisa ua, himahleh, police te’n DC' office tan a pai ding uh ana dal uhi. Huaitak in, BJP member te’n gari taina ding khaktan in lamlian lai ah kiphinna nasaktak pan ua, police te’n leng a hawldalhna ding in chiangpum zang hial uhi. Huai banah, party member bangzah hiam leng man in Gorchuk police station a kem mahle uh nitaklam in khahkhe nawn pah uh hi’n thusuak in taklang hi.


Thupi: TOUPA Pathian nei nam tuh a hampha uhi; amah gouluah dia a tel mite mah. Sam 33:12

Sihna sang in hinna telzaw ni!

Eimite lak ah Pathian thu theilou kizong dek le hang i muhzohlouh tawp in leng i tawm mahmah ding uhi. Jesu nungzui mi 12-te tangthu i thei chiat ding ua, Jesu’n van a kah san khit nung in leng ginomtak in Pathian’ nna a semtou nilouh ua, kha mangthang tamtak man in saptuam a di’n nna a sem nilouh uh ahi. Huai kia hilou in, a tawp in a hinna tanpha uh Pathian min in a chan uh ahi. A damsung teng uh Pathian a di’n a ‘hing’ ua, a hinna uh leng Pathian a di’n a pia uhi. Ei Christian kichete’n leng nungzui 12-te apat i sin ding uh tam mahmah hi. Pathian min a sihna ding bang omta leh Lamka zang a mi tengteng phial in sih ngam ding ihi uhi. Himahleh, Pathian a dia hin ding lam a hong hih chiang in bel a hing ngap om kichi mahlehang a hingzou taktak kivang mahmah ding hi. Pathian min a sih i ngap uh a hoihlou chihna hilou in, hoihlua himahleh, Pathian a dia sih i ngap bangdeuh un Pathian a di’n hin leng ngap leng hoih sem ding hi. Pathian’ nna bel mi teng in kisemlou a (saptuam a full-time worker hilou), himahleh, ei sep-le-bawl tuamtuamte banah i niteng hinkhua uah bel Pathian’ nna septheih chiat ahihdan i thei mahmah uhi. Saptuam a Upa hiam ahihkeileh Pastor hiam a pan kia Pathian’ nna sepna hilou a, i niteng hinkhua ua i sep-le-bawl tuamtuamte a chitaktak leh ginomtak a sep leng Pathian’ nna sepna chikhat ahi hi.

Gam-le-nam i chih lah Pathian in a bawl mah ahi ngal a, huai ziak in, gam-le-nam a dia sep i chih leng Pathian’ nna sepna chikhat ahi. Huai ziak mah ahi dia, gam-le-nam i iit thei mahmah ua, gam-le-nam’ nna ‘full-time’ a sem tamtakte banah nam in haksatna a tuah hun a hinna tanpha ana pia tamtak ki-omta hi. Nam-le-gam in haksatna ana tuah hun a hinna tanpha ana pia tamtakte banah tu’n leng i gam-le-nam in haksatna tuak (etsakna di’n gal bang) tuak nawntaleh, tuailaite kia hilou in, atek-akhang tamtakte’n gam-le-nam a dia sih i ngap uh gintakhuai hi. Gam-le-nam iitna ziak a hinna ana pia, honna mualliamsantate i ngaihsut chiang in kipahna leh, kami-kasa lak a mihangsan hiai zahtak om ahi maw chih ziak in kisaktheihna lam bang in leng lak theih hi. Huai kia hilou in, hun haksa hong tung taktak leh tua honna mualliamsantate sang a tamzawte’n gam-le-nam a dia sih ngap lai i chih chiang in kipahhuai in kisaktheihhuai petmah hi.

Gam-le-nam i iit thei mahmah ua, sih ngap leng tampitak i om uhi. Himahleh, gam-le-nam’ a dia honna mualliamsante’ kipiakna genneuna hilou in, tu’n bel gam-le-nam a dia sihna’ng a om lawmlawm tadihkei a, a om zeuhzeuh a leh leng kipahhuaitak in mihangsan i kidaih mahmah lai uhi. Gam-le-nam’ a dia sih ngap kidaih tadihlai ihihman un, gam-le-nam a dia sih ngap tamtakte’n i kipiakna uh neuchik kheniam zek mai in, i taksap mahmah dungzui un, gam-le-nam a dia silou in hing zaw leng sih sang in a manphazaw dia aw chih ngaihdan om hi. Koimun hiam khong a sepaih pan kia gam-le-nam a dia sepna hilou a, i ommun leh panmun chiat ua, i niteng hinkhua ua i sep-le-bawl tuamtuamte khempeuh a chitaktak leh ginomtak a sep leng gam-le-nam a dia sepna khat ahi hi. I niteng hinkhua ua i sep-le-bawl khempeuh a diktattak leh ginomtak a, nam-le-gam a dia sem ding mi i kitasam mahmah uhi. Nam-le-gam a dia sih ngap i tam mahmah hang un nam-le-gam a dia hin ngap i kitasam mahmah uhi.

I gentaksa mah bang in, gam-le-nam a dia sep leng Pathian’ nna sepna chikhat ahihna ah, gam-le-nam’ a di’n sem in, hing in sih a poimoh a leh leng sih tanpha in pang leng bel mihing ngaihtuahna maimai in bel Vangam kai ding himai ahi. Huai ziak in, gam-le-nam’ a dia sih ngap vanglakte’n gam-le-nam a dia hin leng ngap vanglak in, gam-le-nam’ a dia sih ngaploute’n leng gam-le-nam a dia hin bek sawm leng hoih ding hi. Sihna sang a hinna tel mah pilhuaizaw ahihna ah, gam-le-nam’ a di’n hing chiat ni!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Reaching out to the poor and the needy : OMCRS

By Donn Morgan Kipgen

"Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the rights of the poor and the needy."
—Proverbs 31:8-9.

Nestling proudly beneath cool shadow of the Langgol Hills range is a neatly built housing complex with a tell-tale signboard reading; "Outreach Missions Charitable and Religious Society (OMCRS)". Its mission's Motto being: "Reaching the unreached People Groups at any cost." The OMCRS is an interdenominational charitable non-profit Christian Missionary Society which runs school-cum-boarding houses for orphans and abandoned children, devotedly taught to follow the Righteous Paths in all walks of life. These 65 odd orphans are strictly trained academically and spiritually to become peer-educators, missionaries, officers and devoted socio-religious workers so as to help the poor, needy or orphans like them in the near future. No educated person forgets his/her benefactors nor ignores his/her own humble beginnings. All these orphan-students of all caste and creed (looked after free-of-cost with all available resources of the God blessed- OMCRS) are being lovingly moulded and imbibed upon this futuristic orphanage's primary goal; "Go and Make Disciples of all Nations," as echoed in Matthew 28:19. Yes, indeed, there are many orphanage or destitute homes run by various NGOs or sponsored by the Govt in all parts of the State without specific future objective nor sense of dedication and moral responsibility. Many orphans are as neglected as the poor and neglected children of God since they are looked after by monthly paid officers and staffs without any sincere sense of devoted purpose nor religious conscience. This is the main difference between spiritual-based institutions like the OMCRS and non-profit charitable public institutions run by the money-based NGOs projects. If only other NGOs and Govt sponsored charitable society could work with full purpose, honour and accountability like the OMCRS, then, all young "victims" of insurgency movements and other man-made or natural disasters in the NE India could surely fine divine solace and promising futures, rather than becoming drug addicts, alcoholic and anti-social elements.

Standing tall, with the grace of God, over other various profitable and non-profitable orphanage, this noble OMCRS was raised by Rev Dr S Lalpi Vaiphei and his dedicated wife, Mrs Sennu, with his devoted followers on 25th February, 1995, with just one Evangelist and 15 orphans and destitute children from all sections of our society at Nongpok Centre Village Registered under No. 312/91 (Charity). As of this period, there are 25 neglected children who are fully sponsored or supported with absolute care by 7 residential staffs and another 65 underprivileged children are given free education and specialised extra-curriculum activities. With more dedication to fulfil their aims and objectives to the fullest, though with very limited financial and man-power resources, the OMCRS workers have been planning to enlarge their "Charitable reach" by bringing in more orphans or underprivileged kids and increase the staff members, who are virtually volunteers. Moreover, they would be eying to open another branches in the insurgency-infested hill areas where the feeble hands of young abandoned kids are there to be reached and pull-out in the deep rivers of no-returns. These neglected survivors are bound to go towards the lure of easy money, intoxicants, profitable crimes, sophisticated weapons, immoral activities, etc.

All young victims of circumstances and that of CI Ops in Manipur are virtually left alone to decide their own futures without any educational and spiritual guidance even though lots of money and large sanctioning of resources have been regularly diverted or diabolically swindled without remorse. Many social workers have become very rich at the expense of the poor and uneducated villagers. However, God and Fate often punished these unholy manipulators with resounding price for their uncharitable misdeeds. With the blessing of religious leaders, all the anti-poverty NGOs need to build permanent institutional complex and openly extend assistance in kind and in cash in all their stipulated branch offices as officially sanctioned. They need to reach out and directly assist the poor and the needy even if they have to fill their personal bank account to show that they did spend some of the allotted money to good use. Building of orphanage, boarding schools, genuine HQ offices and regularly paid staffs, employment of the required number of workers, smaller branch office buildings, showing the good works being atleast done in appropriated manner, total dedication to the stipulated missions, etc., are the most important part of any non-profitable, or even profitable, spiritual-based missions. Like some other rare NGOs which fulfilled the basic demands of their noble causes, the OMCRS has done such things to reach out and bring together destitute or orphans from as many as 23 sub-tribes (i.e. having 23 dialect speaking underprivileged children) at its Ebenzer Home for the last seven years. This is remarkable, to say the least. And this is the very reason (as to) why the all- encompassing roles of the OMCRS deserves a proper highlight so as to encourage other new NGOs with charitable mission to follow suit, for the people, for the State, for the nation and for the world upto the Kingdom of God.

Who cares for the downtrodden and abandoned children of volatile State of Manipur? Many, in theory, but, unfortunately, very few in practice, far more few amongst charitable societies. Hence, the need for awareness in bringing up the poor but intelligent, mentally and physically strong children caught in the line of fire with nowhere to go. If the good citizens want a peaceful and prosperous future, the first window of opportunity is to somehow look after the plights of the homeless and underprivileged children by giving full moral and monetary support to such noble NGO or society like the OMCRS to guide them to the Righteous Path before it is too late by sincerely reaching out as far as possible. Better too late than never in the far flung areas as and when the divine clarion calls. It’s all about reaching for the highest goal we could and should. The pillars of the nation must be strong, polished, unyielding and standing proudly in all shapes and sizes. The multiple presence of bad or rotten apples in all tightly sealed containers needs to be avoided at all cost in all possible manners.

This is exactly where non-profitable and spiritually-motivated NGOs like OMCRS, in the lines of the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontiers (MSF), the Mother Teresa's Children Home, Centre for America's Relief Everywhere (CARE), etc. and other international Philanthropic organisations, have to play the highly voluntary lead roles at any given time period, irrespective of caste, creed and faith. The primary objective of the OMCRS is to love, care, educate and equip the suffering underprivileged and orphaned children by providing free-of-cost meal, lodging, education, health care and spiritual guidance. On his noble project, OMCRS, the Rev Dr L Vaiphei has this to say: "The beginning and the initial establishment was done out of nothing (i.e., no proper resources as required), but it was completed by the grace of God. Till today we are able to sustain it. It’s marvellous, (that the) God blessings fall upon destitute and suffering children to stay at the Ebenezer Home, like a home sweet home." As for the learned charitable citizens, help them to help others is the divine message to note down whole heartedly.

The Sangai Express

CDSU issues open letter to CM

By S Singlianmang Guite

Lamka, Apr 11: Saying they were compelled, following the objection raise by nominees of four MLAs on their earlier call for repealing the FCS commissioner order giving MLAs and their nominees a free hand in dealing with PDS supplies, CDSU has issued an open letter address to the CM with seven critical posers.

“There is no dispute over the representative role of our MLAs or Ministers whom we elect to represent us in the Assembly; speak for and on our behalf, address our grievances an, d help in time of distress,” says the letter that also spoke well of the efforts of their nominees, yet it adds, “other than the CDSU, the public court is there to judge whether their efforts is satisfying or not.”

Being caught on the quagmire of Mautaam famine, the pressing need of the people today is nothing, but availability of rice/foodgrain for survival is another contention it made, and for this neither the government nor the civil societies have done enough to counter the calamity, the letter went on lamenting. “Other than raising famine issue at the assembly none of our representative is found to have comeforth with tangible material support to redress our grievances,” noted the letter further, and said under such circumstances the basic issue of ‘availability of rice’ remains the same.

On the points raise by the MLA nominees several days back, the union said they fully agreed that is not Mautaam related scheme but, disagreed that NREGS money – which seems to be the only option available with the government at present, should not be used for purchasing rice. As it has effectively bestowed to the interior populace, the PDS supply with a cheaper rate.

Against all these backdrop, the union calls on the Chief Minister to answer seven queries of their including, why only 40% of the population is BPL and AAY status while the entire population is practically living under AAY conditions; whether there is any MLA quota in PDS items and under what provision and circumstances; where is the 8000 qntls of additional monthly allocation of rice promise on the floor of the assembly and the 5000 MT FCI godown promise prior to the assembly election; why public has to pay transportation cost of PDS items; what steps were taken to combat Mautaam famine in Churachandpur; and, who is responsible for lifting and distribution of all PDS items, the MLAs and their nominees or the FCS department.

And as to why, they were expecting a reply and prompt follow up action, the union said, the famine affected public who needs “Rice, Rice and sufficient stock of rice” to prevent starvation death, deserves to know it.

The Sangai Express

Friday, April 11, 2008

Manipur Express | April 11, 2008

Cl X te’n Cl VIII te vua : mi 18 kinawhkhia

JNV/Tuinom ah zan nitakin Class X student te’n Class VIII student-te a vuak ziakun buaina piang a, tuni sunnung dak 3 in ZSF leh KSO makai te’n JNV vapha uha, School thuneite tawh meeting zawh in, ZSF leh KSO makaite theihpihna in Class X student mivuakna atelkha mi 18 School apat in nawhkhia(expelled ) uhi. Akigen dan in February 6, 2008 in JNV akai senior te’n junior te a vuak ziak un buaina piang a, Febuary 7, 2008 in ZSF, KSO leh School authority te’n Dan (rules & regulation) bawl uh a, Class asangzaw te’n Class niamzawte avuak uleh direct a nawhkhiak hi ding a, kivuak ziaka liamna tuak a omleh innsung level a kihouna neih hiding in Dan khauhtak bawl uhi.

CDSU in CM kiang ah dotna 7 bawl

Churachandpur District Students’ Union (CDSU) in tuni in Manipur Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh kiang ah Mautaam thu leh PDS tungtang ah dotna poimawh mahmah 7 bawl uhi. CDSU thusuak in agendan in, MLA leh a nominee te’n anntang hawmzak asawmna tung uah, a sep hoih ua leh mipi’n kipahpih mahmah ding ahihdan taklang kawm in, amaute nasep mipite’n gen tam ngailou in thei uh ahi chi uhi. 2005 apan vangtahhuai tak in CCpur District sung ah zusa leh ganhing tuamtuam in buh le bal ban ah haichi te a neeksiat ziak in mautaam kialpi tung ahihdan taklang ua, tuni chiang in mipi’n thil dang himhim poimawh nawnta lou in, a gilvah nang uh antang chauh poimawh ta uh ahihdan CDSU in taklang uhi. NGO tuamtuam apan panpihna tamlou honglut te mipite ik ah namtham lou ahihman in, State Government a kinsak kin poimawh ahi chi uhi. NREGS leh Mautaam kialpi kisai khalou ahihlam CDSU in thei mahmaha, himahleh, antang leina ding in NREGS sumte bel tu-le-tu a poimawh ahihdan CDSU in pomsiam mahmah hi’n taklang ua, huai kawmkawm in CM in mipite theihdia a dawn ngeingei ding in point 7 dotna bawl uhi.

# District mipite AAY nuai ngen a khawsa himahle uh bangziak a BPL leh AAY antang 40% kiang chauh a piak a om hiam?
#PDS Item, Chini, antang, SK oil, wheat leh adangdang te ah MLA/Minister te’n quota nei uhia? A neih ua leh bang provision nuai ah piak a om ahi du?
#Assembly om lai a Churachandpur ading a Antang Kg 8,000 additional piak ding chi a na ki koupih koilam tungta hi hiam?
#Kumlui a Assembly election om ma deuh a Churachandpur ah FCI godown 5000 MT capacity tunkhiak ding na chih bang chi hita maimah ahia leh?
#PDS item puak vel na dia bangziak a mipite’n transportation charge pemawk uh ahi di?
#CCpur district sung a mautaam kialpi douna dingin State Government in bangtan pan ala ta a?
#PDS item hawmzakna tawh kisai kua mawhpuak hi hiam? MLA/ A nominee te ahih kei leh, FCS Department maw?

Hiai a tung a dotna te dawng ding in CDSU in CM ngen ua, huai kawmkawm in mipite’n thil dang himhim lunggulh nawnlou in, antang chauh ngaihtuah pen in neita uh chi’n CDSU Information andPublicity Department thusuak in taklang hi.

Cabinet in ADC ordinance genkhawm ding

Imphal, April-10: Chief Minister O. Ibobi makaihna in April 11, 2008 in Cabinet meeting om ding a, huai ah Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Ordinance -2008 telin agenda tuamtuam 12 genkhawm ding uh chihthu om hi. April 3, 2008 in Assembly session ni 1 sung om a, huai ah Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Bill,2008 genkhawm a pass ding uh chih himahleh huai Bill ah bawlthak dia poimawh a diklou tamtak om ziakin TD Minister DD Thaisii huai Bill zukkik a, huai nunga Cabinet in a genkhawmna masapen uh hilai ding hi’n kigen hi. Agenda dangte bel Manipur Panchayati Raj Act,1994 tungtang, Kwakeithel Akham Leikai firing inquiry commission report telin agenda tuamtuam 12 vel genkhawm ding uhi.

R.Khumi tuni’n ki-report lou

Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) a Program Officer Ms Khumi in ICDS sum Rs.22 lakh val thelthangsak chihthu ah Police te’n tuni zingkal in Police station ah ki-report ding in theisak mahleh uh R.Khumi va hawhlou hi. Tuni mah in Police te’n ICDS office, Treasury office leh SBI/CCpur Branch apan in document tuamtuam va kaikhawm ua thil omdan suizui uhi.

Family Ration Card ahun beilou

CCpur District a Family Ration Card (AAY/BPL/APL) book ah 2007 tankia kigelh ziakin Agent bangzah hiamte’n ahun beita chimahle uh ahun beilou(expire) nailou hi’n officialte apan kiza hi. DC office/CCpur apat a Ration Card athak bawl ahihma tan ahun bei chih omlou in kuapeuh in alui pe’n zat touh theih ding hi’n thusuak kingah hi.

Paybill pass sunzom theilou

Manipur Government nuai a employee te’n March 2008 khalawh laktheih nang in April 4, 2008 in order suak mahleh, paybill pass nang in Post Extension order poimawh a, huai neiloute Treasury office te’n paybill pass theilou in tuni tan in Department 2 ah kia pass theipan lel uh hidan in thu kiza hi.

Angel’s Vision Music Award

Angel’s Vision Music Award Managing Committee saina in April 11, 2008 nitak dak 6 apat in YPA Hall, New Lamka ah Angel’s Vision Music Award 2007-2008 hawm khiak hiding hi. Huai ah Award tuamtuam 15 vel siamna tungtuan neite kiang ah piak hiding in kigen hi.

JSY sum lakthei laitak hi

Naunei nau neite panpihna sum (Janani Suraksha Yojona) December 2007 leh January 2008 kha a kihawm khelel hi. Dec 2007 in District Hospital apan mi 111 leh Lamka Nursing Home apan mi 20 pha ua, January 2008 in District Hospital apan mi 134 leh Lamka Nursing Home apan mi 14 in mu ding uh a, ala nailou te’n lak theih lel hi’n thutut kingah hi.

TB tawh kisai kisinsak uh

Project Orchid (State Co-ordinating Unit, Manipur) te saina in tuni zinglam dak 10:30 apat in Ebenezar Academy, New Lamka ah RNTCP(TB tawh kisai) kisinsakna nei ua, Dr.P.Nengzadou, District TB officer/CCpur in sinsak hi. Huai hun ah LRRC, SAHARA leh SHALOM apan staff 50 tel uhi.

NREGS thu ah DC in theihsakna bawl

Sumant Singh,IAS, DC/CCpur makaih in tuni sunnung dak 1 apat in DC office a Conference Hall ah BDO/Program Officer teng tawh meeting nei uhi. Amau’ NREGS nasepna tawh kisai genkhawm uh a, DC in BDO teng kiang ah Tipaimukh, Thanlon leh Vangai Range ading ni 100 nasep ding, Henglep leh Singngat ading ni 65 ban ah, Lamka, Tuibuong, Samulamlan, Saikot leh Sangaikot block te ading in ni 50 chiat mipite na semsak ding in theisak hi.

Huai ban ah, nasepna tawh kisai measurement book, cash memo/voucher, Pre-work photo, post-work photo, utilization certificate ban ah, complete certificate pelut theilou teng 2008-2009 ading in fund khat leng piak hilou ding in theisak hi. BDO teng in amau’ bial a khawteng ah mipite na semsak ding in theisak a, BDO te’n theihsakna abawl kei uleh, DC in BDO te tung ah show cause notice peding in gen hi. DC in Thanlon BDO kiang ah a posting mun kintak a zuan ding in zasak hi. Tuni meeting ah Tipaimukh, Tuibuong, Henglep leh Singngat BDO te a tellouh ziak unApril 11 sunnung dak 12 in meeting sutzop hiding hi.

Workshop leh social audit om ding

Lamka, April 10: Upp Lamka a YPA Gen.Hqtrs Hall April 24-25, 2008 sung NREGS tawh kisai in Workshop and training on Social audit om ding. April 24 in Lamka, Tuibuong, Saikot, Samulamlan leh Sangaikot block te hiding ua, April 25 in Tipaimukh, Vangai range, Thanlon, Henglep leh Singngat block te hiding hi. Huai training ah village authority chairman, Vigilance and monitoring Committee a Chairman leh Secretary teng tel teitei din theihsak hi uhi. Huai a telte TA/DA leng piak hiding uhi.

The Status of Tibet


At the time of its invasion by troops of the People's Liberation Army of China in 1949, Tibet was an independent state in fact and law. The military invasion constituted an aggression on a sovereign state and a violation of international law. Today's continued occupation of Tibet by China, with the help of several hundred thousand troops, represents an ongoing violation of international law and of the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people to independence.

The Chinese Communist Government claims it has a right to "ownership" of Tibet. It does not claim this right on the basis of its military conquest in 1949 or alleged effective control over Tibet since then or since 1959. The Chinese Government also does not base its claim to "ownership" on the so-called "Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" which it forced upon Tibet in 1951. Instead, China's alleged legal claim is based on historical relationships primarily of Mongol or Manchu rulers with Tibetan lamas and, to a lesser extent, of Chinese rulers and Tibetan lamas. The main events relied on by the Chinese Government occurred hundreds of years ago: during the height of Mongol imperial expansion, when the Mongol Emperors extended their political supremacy throughout most of Asia and large parts of Eastern Europe; and when Manchu Emperors ruled China and expanded their influence throughout East and Central Asia, including Tibet, particularly in the 18th century.

It is not disputed that at different times in its long history Tibet came under various degrees of foreign influence: that of the Mongols, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu Emperors of China and the British rulers of India. At other times in Tibet's history, it was Tibet which exercised power and influence on its neighbours, including China. It would be hard to find any state in the world today that has not been subjected to foreign domination or influence for some part of its history. In Tibet's case the degree and length of foreign influence and interference was quite limited. Moreover, relationship with the Mongol, Chinese and Manchu rulers, to the extent they had political significance, were personal in nature and did not at any time imply a union or integration of the Tibetan state with or into a Chinese state.

However fascinating Tibet's ancient history may be, it's status at the time of the Chinese invasion must, of course, be judged on the basis of its position in modern history, especially its relationship with China since 1911, when the Chinese overthrew the foreign Manchu rule and became the masters of their own country. Every country can go back to some period in history to justify territorial claims on neighbouring states. That is unacceptable in international law and practice.

The reader of China's White Paper "Tibet: Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation" will be struck by the scant attention its authors pay to Tibet's modern history in the decades before 1949. This is because from 1911 to the completion of the Chinese occupation in 1951, there is no evidence of Chinese authority or influence in Tibet which can support China's claim. In fact, the preponderance of the evidence shows precisely the opposite: that Tibet was to all intents and purposes a sovereign state, independent of China. This conclusion is supported by most legal scholars and experts on the subject.

The International Commission of Jurists' Legal Enquiry Committee on Tibet reported in its study on Tibet's legal status:

Tibet demonstrated from 1913 to 1950 the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law. In 1950, there was a people and a territory, and a government which functioned in that territory, conducting its own domestic affairs free from any outside authority. From 1913-1950, foreign relations of Tibet were conducted exclusively by the Government of Tibet, and countries with whom Tibet had foreign relations are shown by official documents to have treated Tibet in practice as an independent State.
[Tibet and Chinese People's Republic, Geneva, 1960, pp. 5,6]

Forty years of independence is clearly sufficient for a country to be regarded as such by the international community. Many members of the United Nations today have enjoyed a similar or even shorter period of independence. But in Tibet's case, even its ancient history has been selectively re-written by the Chinese Government's propaganda machine to serve the purpose of defending its claim to "ownership." Thus, even if it is not necessary to discuss Tibet's early history in order to understand its status on the eve of China's military invasion, we believe it is useful to review it briefly, just to set the record straight.

The status of Tibet: 1911-1951

There can be little argument that on the eve of China's military invasion, which started at the close of 1949, Tibet possessed all the attributes of independent statehood recognised under international law: a defined territory, a population inhabiting that territory, a government, and the ability to enter into international relations.

The territory of Tibet largely corresponds to the geological plateau of Tibet, which consists of 2.5 million square kilometre. At different times in history, wars were fought and treaties signed concerning the precise location of boundaries.

The population of Tibet at the time of the Chinese invasion was approximately six million. That population constituted the Tibetan people, a distinct people with a long history, rich culture and spiritual tradition. Tibetans are a people distinct from the Chinese and other neighbouring peoples. Not only have the Tibetans never considered themselves to be Chinese, the Chinese have also not regarded the Tibetans to be Chinese (hence, for example, the references to "barbarians" in Chinese historical annals).

The Government of Tibet was headquartered in Lhasa, the capital city of Tibet. It consisted of a Head of State (the Dalai Dalai Lama), a Cabinet of Ministers (the Kashag), a National Assembly (the Tsongdu), and an elaborate bureaucracy to administer the vast territory of Tibet. The Judicial system was based on that developed by Songtsen Gampo (7th Century), Jangchub Gyaltsen (14th Century), the Fifth Dalai Lama (17th Century) and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (20th Century), and was administered by Magistrates appointed by the Government.

The Government of Tibet levied tax, issued its own currency, ran the country's postal system and issued postage stamps, commanded Tibet's small army, and generally conducted all affairs of Government. It was an ancient form of government which had served the needs of Tibet well in the past, but was in need of reform in order for the country to keep pace with the great political, social and economic changes that were taking place in the world. The Tibetan form of government was a highly de-centralised one, with many districts and principalities of Tibet enjoying a large degree of self-government. This was, to a large extent, inevitable due to the vastness of the territory and the lack of modern communication systems.

The international relations of Tibet were focused on the country's neighbours. Tibet maintained diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with countries in the region such as Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Mongolia, China, British India, and, to a limited extent, with Russia and Japan.

Tibet's independent foreign policy is perhaps most obviously demonstrated by the country's neutrality during World War II. Despite strong pressures from Britain, the U.S. and China to allow the passage of military supplies through Tibet to China when Japan blocked the strategically vital "Burma Road," Tibet held fast to its declared neutrality, which the Allies were constrained to respect.

China today claims that "no country ever recognised Tibet." In international law, recognition can be obtained by an explicit act of recognition or by implicit act or behaviour. The conclusion of treaties, even the conduct of negotiations, and certainly the maintenance of diplomatic relations are forms of recognition. Mongolia and Tibet concluded a formal treaty of recognition in 1913; Nepal not only concluded peace treaties with Tibet, and maintained an Ambassador in Lhasa, but also formally stated to the United Nations in 1949, as part of its application for UN membership, that it maintained independent diplomatic relations with Tibet as it did with several other countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, India and Burma.

Nepal, Bhutan, Britain, China and India maintained diplomatic missions in Tibet's capital, Lhasa. Although China claimed in its propaganda that its mission in Tibet was a branch office of the so-called Commission of Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs of the Guomindang government, the Tibetan Government only recognised it as a diplomatic mission. Its status was no higher than the Nepalese Embassy (Nepal had a full Ambassador or "Vakil" in Lhasa) or the British Mission. The Tibetan Foreign Office also conducted limited relations with the United States when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent emissaries to Lhasa to request assistance for the Allied war effort against Japan during the Second World War. Also, during the four UN General assembly debates on Tibet in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1965, many countries expressly referred to Tibet as an independent country illegally occupied by China.

Relations with Nationalist China

China's position was ambiguous during this period (1911-49). On the one hand, the Nationalist Government unilaterally announced in its constitution and in communications to other countries that Tibet was a province of the Republic of China (one of the "five races" of the Republic). On the other hand, it recognised that Tibet was not part of the Republic of China in its official communications with the Government of Tibet. Thus, China's President repeatedly sent letters and envoys to the Dalai Lama and to the Tibetan Government asking that Tibet "join" the Republic of China. Similar messages were sent by China to the Government of Nepal. Both Tibet and Nepal consistently refused to join China. In response to the first letter of Chinese President Yuan Shih-kai, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama rejected the invitation to join the Republic, explaining courteously but firmly that Tibetans did "not approve" of the Chinese Government due to past injustices and stated:

The Republic has only just been proclaimed and the national foundations are far from strong. It behoves the President to exert his energies towards the maintenance of order. As for Thibet, the Thibetans are quite capable of preserving their existence intact and there is no occasion for the President to worry himself at this distance or to be discomposed. [Guomin Gongbao, 6 Jan. 1913]
In the White Paper, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama is quoted as having told the "envoy" sent by "Beijing" in 1919 that, "It is not my true intention to be on intimate terms with the British. ... I swear to be loyal to our country and jointly work for the happiness of the five races." In that year an unofficial delegation came to Lhasa ostensibly to present religious offerings to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, but in reality to urge the Tibetan leader to negotiate an agreement with China. However, the Dalai Lama rejected the overture outright, and instead, called for tripartite negotiations in Lhasa.

Liu Man-qing, a woman of mixed Tibetan and Chinese parentage, did arrive in Lhasa in 1930. But her visit was described as personal. She also tried to approach the Tibetan Government with communications from the Chinese resident, but the Tibetan gave her no encouragement. In China's White Paper, it is stated that the Dalai Lama, in his communications through her, expressed his belief that Tibet is a part of China. The Dalai Lama is quoted as having said, "My greatest wish is for the real peace and unification of China", etc. There is no historical record of the Dalai Lama having made such statements in 1930. On the contrary, the official record of the Dalai Lama's reply to the Chinese President in 1930 contradicts this statement. The record refers to a list of eight questions submitted to the Dalai Lama on behalf of the Chinese President and contains each of the Dalai Lama's responses.

On relations with China and Chinese influence in Tibet, the Dalai Lama said:

For the stability of Tibet's religio-political order and happiness of its subjects, it may be better to hold negotiations and conclude treaties as this will result in dependable arrangements.

On Tibet's independence and the border territories Tibet wanted returned from China, the Dalai Lama said:

Under the priest-patron relationship that prevailed so far, Tibet has enjoyed wide independence. We wish topreserve this. We feel that there will be long-term stability if the territories we have lost to outsiders are returned to us. [Record of the 13th Dalai Lama's communication, dated 15th day of the 4th Tibetan Month, Iron-Horse Year 1930]

Other Chinese envoys to Tibet, such as General Huang Mu-sung (1934), and Wu Zhong-xin (1940), were also told in no uncertain terms by the Tibetan Government that Tibet was and wished to remain independent. It may be stated here that neither the Chinese Government, nor its "special envoy" (Huang Mu-sung), had any role in the appointment of Rading Rinpoche as the regent after the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. Huang Mu-sung was the first Chinese to be permitted to enter Tibet in an official capacity since 1911. The Tibetans did not refuse him permission because he came to offer religious tribute and condolences for the late Dalai Lama. In the event, Huang Mu-sung arrived in Lhasa in April 1934, three months after Rading Rinpoche became the Regent. The Tsongdu (National Assembly) nominated three candidates for the regency, Rading Rinpoche, Gaden Tripa Yeshi Wangdhen and Phurchok Rinpoche. Out of them, Rading Rinpoche was selected through a lot-drawing ceremony conducted in front of the statue of Avalokitesvara in the Potala. [Thupten Tenthar Lhawutara in Bod kyi Lo rGyus Rig gNas dPyad gZhi'i rGyu cha bDams BsGrigs, Vol. 12, People's Publishing House, Beijing, 1990]

In the White Paper, China claims that Tibetan Government officials were sent to participate in China's national assembly sessions in 1931 and 1946 in Nanjing. In fact, in 1931, Khenpo Kunchok Jungne was appointed by the Dalai Lama to set up a temporary liaison office in Nanjing and maintain contact with the Chinese Government. Likewise, the 1946 Tibetan mission was sent to Delhi and Nanjing to congratulate Britain, the United States and China on the Allied victory in the Second World War. They had no instruction or authority to attend any Chinese national assembly. Speaking about this to the International Commission of Jurists' Legal Inquiry Committee on 29 August 1959, the Dalai Lama said, "They (Tibetan delegates in Nanjing) had no official part in the Assembly. When the propaganda came to the knowledge of our Government they were instructed by telegram not to attend."

As for the establishment of the Commission for Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs by the Nationalist Guomindang Government, that too served only to keep up appearances: to this day, the Guomindang Government in Taiwan maintains this Commission which, it claims, not only has jurisdiction over Tibet, but also over the whole of Mongolia, including Outer Mongolia, whose independence has been internationally recognised since 1924. In fact, this Commission was not recognised by the Tibetan Government and never had any authority with respect to Tibet.

United Nations Debates

When Chinese Communist armies started entering Tibet in 1949, the Tibetan Government sent an urgent appeal to the United Nations to help Tibet resist the aggression. The General Assembly was advised by Britain and India not to take any action for the time being in order not to provoke a full-scale attack by China. But to most countries, China's attack on Tibet was aggression. This became evident especially during the full debates on the issue in the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1965, when many governments echoed the sentiments expressed by the Ambassador of the Philippines who referred to Tibet as an "independent nation" and added: "it is clear that on the eve of the Chinese invasion in 1950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country." He described China's occupation as "the worst type of imperialism, and colonialism past or present." The Nicaraguan representative condemned the Chinese invasion of Tibet and said: "The people of America, born in freedom, must obviously be repelled by an act of aggression ... and particularly when it is perpetrated by a large state against a small and weak one." The Representative from Thailand reminded the Assembly that the majority of states "refute the contention that Tibet is part of China." Similarly, the Government of the United States condemned and denounced Chinese "aggression" and their "invasion" of Tibet.

Irish Representative Frank Aiken stated:

For thousands of years, or for a couple of thousand years at any rate, (Tibet) was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here. [UN GA Docs A/PV 898 1960);A/PV 1394, 1401 1965]

In fact, during those debates, it was only the Communist block which openly sided with China on the issue. From the official statements made during those debates, it is clear that China's assertion that no country ever recognised Tibet's independence or considered the military intervention to be aggression, is simply not true.


The Chinese Government cannot deny the fact that Tibet was independent between 1911 and 1951 without distorting history. Even China's last Head of Mission in Lhasa, Shen Tsung-Lien, wrote after leaving the country in 1948, "Since 1911 Lhasa (ie, the Tibetan Government in Lhasa) has to all practical purposes enjoyed full independence". [Tibet and the Tibetans, Shen, T. and Liu, S., New York, 1973, p.62] Mao Zedong himself, when he passed through the border regions of Tibet during the Long March and was given food and shelter by local Tibetans, remarked, "This is our only foreign debt, and some day we must pay the Mantzu (sic) and the Tibetans for the provisions we were obliged to take from them." [Red Star over China, Edgar Snow, New York, 1961, p.214. Emphasis added].

The origin and position of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama

China's White Paper states, "In 1653 and 1713, the Qing emperors granted honorific titles to the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th Bainqen (Panchen) Lama, henceforth establishing the titles of the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdini and their political and religious status in Tibet. The Dalai Lama ruled the bulk of areas from Lhasa while the Bainqen Erdini ruled the remaining area of Tibet from Xigatse (Shigatse)." This claim is absolutely baseless.

The Tibetan religious scholar and sage, Tsongkhapa (1357-1419), founded the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. It became the fourth major school of Tibetan Buddhism, the others being the Nyingma, the Sakya and the Kagyu. Panchen Gedun Drup was Tsongkhapa's principal disciple.

Panchen Gedun Drup's third reincarnation, Sonam Gyatso, was invited to the Mongol Court of Altan Khan who first conferred the title of "Talai (Dalai) Lama" on him. The title was applied retrospectively to his two previous incarnations, making him the Third Dalai Lama. Thus began the line of the Dalai Lamas. It is, therefore, not true, as Chinese propaganda claims, that the title "Dalai Lama" was first established by a Manchu emperor a century later.

The relationship established by the Third Dalai Lama with Altan Khan was a spiritual one, but it would have political repercussions two centuries later, in 1642, when the Mongol prince, Gushri Khan, helped the Fifth Dalai Lama (Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso 1617-1682) to become the supreme political and spiritual ruler of Tibet. The Fifth Dalai Lama, in his turn, conferred the title of "Chokyi Gyalpo" (Dharma Raja) to his Mongol Patron. From that time on, successive Dalai Lamas ruled Tibet as sovereign heads of state. The political position of the Dalai Lamas was, therefore, not established by a Manchu emperor of the Qing Dynasty as claimed in the White Paper, but by the Fifth Dalai Lama with the help of his Mongol patron, two years before the Qing Dynasty was even established.

Tashilhunpo Monastery was established in 1447 by Panchen Gedun Drup, retrospectively known as the First Dalai Lama. Successive abbots of Tashilhunpo monastery were given the title "Panchen" because of their scholarship. The Fifth Dalai Lama gave his teacher, Panchen Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen (1570-1662), the ownership of Tashilhunpo monastery and some additional estates. After that, the Panchen Lamas were selected on the basis of reincarnation, each successive Panchen Lama retaining ownership of the monastery and estates. This situation was common among many incarnate lamas, such as the Sakya, Phagpa-la, Dakyab Loden Sherab, etc, who had been given estates by the Tibetan Government. But this had absolutely no political significance. Contrary to Chinese Communist propaganda, the Panchen Lamas and other high lamas exercised religious authority only and were not involved in the political administration of any part of Tibet. In fact, the political authority of Shigatse and Tashilhunpo lay with the district governor appointed by Lhasa.

Thus, the Manchu emperor played no role in the establishment of the religious or political status of the Dalai Lama, and none with respect to the Panchen Lama's position either.

After the invasion of Tibet the Chinese Communist Government consistently tried to use the late Panchen Lama to legitimise its position in Tibet. Beijing appointed him to political positions and urged him to denounce and take the place of the Dalai Lama on a number of occasions. But the Panchen Lama refused to do so, and suffered many years of imprisonment and maltreatment as a result.

The Chinese Government claims in the White Paper, as did past Guomindang Governments, that it played a decisive role, through its envoy Wu Zhong-xin, in the selection and installation of the 14th Dalai Lama in 1940, and states, "... the simple reality that the installation of the 14th Dalai Lama needed the approval of the (Chinese) national government is sufficient proof that Tibet did not possess any independent power during that period (1911-1949)."

In reality, the Dalai Lama was selected according to the age-old religious beliefs and traditions of the Tibetans and no approval of the Chinese Government was needed or sought. As a matter of fact, it was in 1939, before Wu's arrival in Lhasa, that the Regent Rading announced the name of the present Dalai Lama in the Tibetan National Assembly, which unanimously confirmed the candidate.

When the enthronment ceremony took place on 22 February 1940, Wu, like envoys from Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal and British India, had no special role. Sir Basil Gould, the British Political Officer who represented British India, explains that the official Chinese version of events was a fiction which had been prepared and published before the enthronement. That fictitious account by Wu Zhong-xin, which China today relies on, reflected what the Chinese had intended to happen, but what did not in fact occur. Chinese propaganda has also used a Chinese news report featuring a photograph of the Dalai Lama with Wu Zhong-xin, captioned as having been taken during the enthronement ceremony. But, according to Ngabo Ngawang Jigme, Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, this photo was taken a few days after the ceremony, when Wu had a private audience with the Dalai Lama.

"Wu Zhong-xin's claim of having presided over the enthronement ceremony on the basis of this photograph is a blatant distortion of historical facts," Ngabo said in Tibet Daily on 31 August 1989.

Early History

According to Tibetan annals, the first king of Tibet ruled from 127 BC, but it was only in the seventh century AD that Tibet emerged as a unified state and a mighty empire under Emperor Songtsen Gampo. With his rule, an era of political and military greatness and territorial expansion started that lasted for three centuries. The King of Nepal and the Emperor of China offered their daughters to the Tibetan Emperor in marriage. The wedding to the Nepalese and Chinese princesses were of particular importance, because they played important roles in the spread of Buddhism in Tibet. Chinese propaganda always refers to political implications of Songtsen Gampo's wedding to the Chinese imperial princess Wen Cheng, conveniently ignoring the Tibetan ruler's other wives, particularly his Nepalese one, whose influence was, if anything, greater than that of her Chinese counterpart.

Tibetan ruler Trisong Detsen (reign: 755-797) expanded the Tibetan empire by conquering parts of China. In 763, China's capital Chang'an (modern day Xian) was invaded and China had to pay an annual tribute to Tibet. In 783, a treaty was concluded which laid down the borders between Tibet and China. A pillar inscription at the foot of the Potala Palace in Lhasa bears witness to some of these conquests.

The peace treaty concluded between Tibet and China in 821, is of particular importance in illustrating the nature of relations between these two great powers of Asia. The text of this treaty, both in Tibetan and Chinese, was inscribed on three stone pillars: one was erected in Gungu Meru to demarcate the borders between the two nations, second in Lhasa where it still stands, and the third in the Chinese capital of Chang'an. Passages quoted from the pillars in the White Paper are inaccurate and out of context, and aimed at creating the impression that some sort of "union" resulted from the treaty. Nothing is further from the truth, as is clear from the following principal passage of that treaty:

Tibet and China shall abide by the frontiers of which they are now in occupation. All to the east is the country of great China; and all to the west is, without question, the country of great Tibet. Henceforth, on neither side shall there be waging of war nor seizing of territory.

It is hard to see how China can, in its White Paper, interpret these events as showing that "the Tibetans and Hans (Chinese) had, through marriage between royal families and meetings leading to alliances, cemented political and kinship ties of unity and political friendship, and formed close economic and cultural relations, laying a solid foundation for the ultimate founding of a unified nation." In fact, the historical records, both Tibetan and Chinese, contradict such an interpretation and refer to separate and powerful empires.

In the mid-ninth century, the Tibetan state fragmented into several principalities. Tibetan attention focused on India and Nepal from where a strong religious and cultural influence brought on a major spiritual and intellectual renaissance.

Relations with the Mongol Emperors (1240-1350)

The Mongol ruler Genghis Khan and his successors conquered vast territories in Asia and Europe creating one of the largest empires the world has ever known, stretching from the Pacific to eastern Europe. In 1207, the Tangut empire north of Tibet fell to the advancing Mongols, and in 1271, the Mongols announced the establishment of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty to rule the Eastern part of the Empire. By 1279, the Chinese Song dynasty in southern China fell before the advancing armies and the Mongols completed their conquest of China. Today, China claims the Yuan Dynasty to be its own dynasty because, by doing so, it lays claim to all Mongol conquests, at least in the eastern half of the Mongol Empire.

Prince Goden, grandson of Genghis Khan, dispatched an expedition to Tibet in 1240 and invited one of Tibet's leading religious hierarchs, Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen (1182-1251), to his court, thus establishing an enduring Tibetan-Mongol relationship. Here began the unique cho-yon (priest-patron) relationship. Kublai Khan, who succeeded Goden Khan, embraced Tibetan Buddhism and adopted Drogon Choegyal Phagpa, nephew of Sakya Pandita, as his spiritual mentor. This cho-yon relationship resulted in Kublai adopting Buddhism as his empire's state religion, and Phagpa became its highest spiritual authority. In gratitude, Kublai Khan offered his Tibetan lama political authority over Tibet in 1254, conferring various titles on him.

These early cho-yon relationships were followed by many similar relationships between Mongol princes or Tibetan noble families and Tibetan lamas. This unique Central Asian relationship also formed the basis of later relations between Manchu emperors and successive Dalai Lamas. The cho-yon relationship itself was purely a personal one arising from the religious devotion of the Patron for the Priest and continued to exist even if the political status of the Patron changed. This was evident in the Mongol-Tibetan relationship, which continued to exist even after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty.

An essential element of the cho-yon relationship was the protection that the Patron provided his Lama in return, not for the latter's allegiance, but for his religious teachings and blessings. Some cho-yon relationships acquired important political dimensions and the Patron was expected to provide military support to protect the Lama and his Teaching or "church". Superiority of the protector was not implied, as the Chinese propaganda suggests, since the lay patron was the student and worshipper of his Lama.

When Buddhism became the State religion in the eastern part of the Mongol empire and the Sakya Lama (Phagpa) its highest spiritual authority, the Mongol-Tibetan relationship could be best described in terms of mutual interdependence. This concept provided for dual political and religious paramountcy of the worldly emperor and the spiritual leader on the basis of equality and interdependence. While the spiritual leader depended on the emperor for protection and for backing in ruling Tibet, the conquering emperor depended on the lama to provide the legitimacy for his rule of the Mongol Empire.

It is undeniable that Mongol Emperors spread their influence over Tibet. But, contrary to the assertion made in the Chinese White Paper that,"In the mid 13th century Tibet was officially incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty", none of the Mongol rulers ever made any attempt to administer Tibet directly; Tibet did not even pay tax to the Mongol Empire, and it certainly was never considered part of China by the Mongol emperors.

Tibet broke its political relationship with the Mongols in 1350 when the Tibetan king, Jangchub Gyaltsen (reign: 1350-1364), replaced the Sakya Lamas as the most powerful ruler of Tibet. Jangchub Gyaltsen did away with Mongol influences in the Tibetan administrative system and introduced a new and distinctly Tibetan one. He also enacted a Code of Law (Trimyig Shelchey Cho-nga, 15 Article Code), for the administration of justice in the kingdom. The Chinese regained their independence from Mongol rule and established the Ming dynasty eighteen years after that.

Relations with Chinese Emperors (1368-1644)

The White Paper claims that the Chinese Ming Dynasty "replaced the Yuan Dynasty in China and inherited the right to rule Tibet". But, there is no historical basis for this assertion. As shown above, the relationship established between Mongol Khans or emperors and Tibetan lamas predated the Mongol conquest of China. Similarly, Tibet broke with the Mongol emperors before China regained its independence from them. The Chinese emperors of the Ming inherited no relationship from the Mongols. On the other hand, Mongol Khans continued to maintain their intensive religious and cultural ties with Tibetans, often in the form of cho-yon relationships, for centuries afterwards.

Even if the Mongols did exercise influence in Tibet, it is still too presumptious on the part of China to claim Mongol inheritence when an independent Outer Mongolia exists as the only legitimate representative of the Mongolian people and nation.

Contacts between Tibet and Ming China were scarce and largely limited to visits by individual lamas of various, sometimes rival, monasteries to China, and the granting of honorific imperial titles or gifts by the Chinese Emperor to them. These visits are recorded in Tibetan histories of the fifteenth to seventeenth century, but there is no evidence whatsoever of political subordination of Tibet or its rulers to China or the Ming emperors. In its White Paper, the Chinese Government alleges that these contacts with individual lamas demonstrate Ming authority in and over Tibet. But since Tibet was not ruled by any of those lamas, whatever the nature of their contacts may have been, they could not affect the independent status of Tibet.

From 1350, Tibet was ruled by the princes of Phagmodru and then, from about 1481, by the Rinpung dynasty. In 1406, the ruling Phagmodru prince, Dakpa Gyaltsen, turned down the Imperial invitation to him to visit China. This clearly shows the sovereign authority of Tibetan rulers at that time. From about 1565 until the rise to power of the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1642 (two years before the fall of the Ming Dynasty), the kings of Tsang ruled Tibet. There are indications of sporadic diplomatic relations between some of these rulers and Ming emperors, but the latter exercised neither authority nor influence over them.

In 1644, the Chinese emperors were once again overthrown by foreign conquerors. The Manchus succeeded in establishing their own imperial dynasty, which ruled over a large empire, the most important part of which was China. They called it the Qing Dynasty.

Relations with the Manchus (1639-1911)

In 1642, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, with the help of his Mongol patron Gushri Khan, became the supreme political and religious ruler of unified Tibet. Since then, Tibetans accepted him as their "Gongsa Chenpo" or "The Supreme Sovereign". His prestige was recognised far beyond Tibet's borders.

The Fifth Dalai Lama not only maintained a close relationship with the Mongols but also developed close ties with the Manchu rulers. In 1639, before the Dalai Lama acquired supreme political power and also before the Manchu conquest of China and the establishment of the Qing Dynasty, Manchu Emperor Tai Tsung invited the Dalai Lama to his capital, Mukden (present-day Shenyang). Unable to accept the invitation personally, the Dalai Lama sent his envoy who was treated with great respect by the Emperor. Thus the Cho-yon relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Manchu rulers was established. As was true of the Tibetan relationship with the Mongol emperors, the links developed between Tibetans and the Manchu emperors did not involve China. As Owen Lattimore points out in reference to the Qing Dynasty, "What existed in fact was a Manchu Empire, of which China formed only one part." [Studies in Frontier History]

Having conquered China and annexed it to the Manchu empire, Emperor Shunzi invited the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1653 for a state visit to the Imperial capital. In an unprecedented sign of respect, the Manchu Emperor made a four-day journey outside his capital (Beijing) to receive the Tibetan sovereign and foremost spiritual leader of Central Asian Buddhists. Commenting on the Dalai Lama's visit, W.W. Rockhill, an American scholar and diplomat in China, wrote:

(The Dalai Lama) had been treated with all the ceremony which could have been accorded to any independent sovereign, and nothing can be found in Chinese works to indicate that he was looked upon in any other light; at this period of China's relations with Tibet, the temporal power of the Lama, backed by the arms of Gusri Khan and the devotion of all Mongolia, was not a thing for the Emperor of China to question. [The Dalai Lamas of Lhasa and Their Relations With Emperors of China, 1644-1908, T'oung Pao 11, 1910, p.37]

On this occasion, the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Manchu Emperor bestowed unprecedented high complimentary titles upon each other and the cho-yon relationship was reaffirmed. In the White Paper, the Chinese Government refers only to the honorific title given by the Emperor to the Dalai Lama, but conveniently leaves out any mention of the similar honorific title granted by the Dalai Lama to the Emperor. Chinese propaganda infers that it was this deed by the Manchu Emperor which conferred the legal right to the Dalai Lama to rule Tibet. This interpretation intentionally misses the point of the event, namely that titles were exchanged by two sovereign leaders. If the Dalai Lama was dependent on his imperial title for the exercise of his authority, then so was the Manchu Emperor dependent on the title granted by the Dalai Lama for the exercise of his authority.
Throughout the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) relations between Tibet and the Manchu emperors remained formally based on the cho-yon relationship. The Manchu Emperor readily responded to the appeals for help to drive out invading Dzungar Mongols and escort the newly discovered Seventh Dalai Lama to the Tibetan capital in 1720.

Manchu forces entered Tibet on three more times in the eighteenth century, once to protect Tibet against invading Gorkha forces from Nepal (1792), and twice to restore order after civil wars (1728 and 1751). Each time they came at the request of the Tibetans, and each time the cho-yon relationship was invoked.

The Manchus did succeed in establishing some degree of influence in Tibet during those crisis periods. But their influence declined rapidly afterwards, rendering them unable to play any role when Tibet fought wars against invaders from Jammu (1841- 1842), Nepal (1855-1856), and British India (1903-04). By the mid 19th century the Manchu Emperor's role (and the related role of the Amban) was only nominal.

The White Paper devotes considerable attention to Emperor Qianlong's so-called 29-article edict, or regulations, of 1793 concerning Tibet, and to the appointment of Ambans (ambassadors). It presents the "regulations" as if they were an imperial order proving extensive Manchu authority in Tibet. In reality, the 29 points were suggestions made by the Emperor for certain reforms of the Government of Tibet following its war with Nepal. The Ambans were not viceroys or administrators, but were essentially ambassadors appointed to look after Manchu interests, and to protect the Dalai Lama on behalf of the Emperor.

In 1792, the Gorkhas of Nepal invaded Tibet following a dispute between Tibet and Nepal and the Dalai Lama appealed to the Manchu Emperor for help. The Emperor sent a large army which helped Tibet drive out the Gorkhas, and mediated a treaty of peace between Tibet and Nepal. Since this was the fourth time the Emperor was asked to send troops to fight for the Tibetan Government, he wanted some say in Tibetan affairs in order to prevent Tibetans from becoming involved in conflicts which might again precipitate requests for Manchu military involvement. The "regulations" were suggestions made in the context of the Emperor's protector role, rather than an order from a ruler to his subjects. This emerges clearly from the statement made by the Imperial envoy and commander of the Manchu army, General Fu K'ang-an, to the Eighth Dalai Lama:

The Emperor issued detailed instructions to me, the Great General, to discuss all the points, one by one, in great length. This demonstrates the Emperor's concern that Tibetans come to no harm and that their welfare be ensured in perpetuity. There is no doubt that the Dalai Lama,acknowledging his gratitude to the Emperor, will accept these suggestions once all the points are discussed and agreed upon.However, if the Tibetans insist on clinging to their age-old habits, the Emperor will withdraw the Ambans and the garrison after the troops are pulled out. Moreover, if similar incidents occur in the future, the Emperor will have nothing to do with them. The Tibetans may, therefore, decide for themselves as to what is in their favour and what is not or what is heavy and what is light, and make a choice on their own. [Quoted from Ya Han Chang's Biography of the Dalai Lamas in Bod kyi Lo rGyus Rag Rim g-Yu Yi Preng ba, Vol 2, Published by Tibet Institute of Social Science, Lhasa, 1991, p.316]

Rather than accepting or rejecting the Emperor's points, Tibetans adopted some of the 29 points which were perceived to be beneficial to them, and disregarded those they thought to be unsuitable. As Panchen Choekyi Nyima, the predecessor of the Late Panchen Lama, said: "Where Chinese policy was in accordance with their own views, the Tibetans were ready to accept the Amban's advice; but ... if this advice ran counter in any respect to their national prejudices, the Chinese Emperor himself would be powerless to influence them. [Diary of Capt. O'Connor, 4 September 1903]

Among the important points of this "29-point edict" was the Emperor's proposal for the selection of great incarnate lamas, including the Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas, by drawing lots from a golden urn. This important task, however, was the responsibility of the Tibetan Government and high lamas, who continued to select them according to religious traditions. Thus, already on the first occasion when the golden urn should have been employed, namely for the selection of the Ninth Dalai Lama in 1808, Tibetans disregarded it.

Another important point of this "edict" was the role of Ambans. The Amban's role resembled that of an ambassador, at times, and that of a Resident in a classical protectorate relationship, at other times. It is best understood in the explanation Amban Yu Tai gave in 1903 to Mortimer Durand, the Foreign Secretary of the Government of India (as reported by him) that, "he was only a guest in Lhasa - not a master - and he could not put aside the real masters, and as such he had no force to speak of." [Sir Mortimer Durand: A Biography, by Sir Percy Sykes, London 1926, p.166] In the same sense, two Lazarist missionaries, Huc and Gabet, who were in Lhasa in the mid-nineteenth century, described the position of the Ambans as follows: "the Government of Tibet resembles that of the Pope and the position occupied by the Chinese Ambassadors was the same as that of the Austrian Ambassador at Rome." [Decouverte du Thibet, 1845-1846, M. Huc, 1933, p.50] The reference to "Chinese Ambassadors" is a common mistake, because the Manchu Emperors were careful not to appoint Chinese Ambans but Manchus or Mongolians, a fact which stressed that the appointment of the Amban was also viewed in the context of the protector's role in the cho-yon relationship, a relationship from which the Chinese were excluded.

The unprecedented invasion of Tibet by Manchu troops in 1908 was a turning point in relations between Tibet and the Manchu Emperor. Previous imperial military expeditions had come to assist the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan Government and at their invitation. But this time, the Manchu Emperor attempted to establish his authority in Tibet by force, largely in order to remove increasing British influence in Tibet. The Dalai Lama fled to neighbouring India, and the occupation of Tibet was short-lived. When the Manchu Emperor tried to "depose" the Dalai Lama in 1910, the Dalai Lama declared the termination of the cho- yon relationship. The protector had attacked his Lama and thereby violated the very foundation of their relationship.

Resistance to the invasion succeeded when the Manchu Empire collapsed and Tibetans forced the occupying army to surrender. In the summer of 1912, Nepalese mediation between Tibet and China resulted in the conclusion of the "Three Point Agreement" providing for formal surrender and expulsion of all remaining Imperial troops. After returning to Lhasa, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama issued a proclamation reaffirming the independence of Tibet on 14 February 1913.

Relations with British India (1857-1911)

Since the end of the eighteenth Century, Britain developed a keen interest to open up trade with Tibet. Since all the Himalayan states which were closely linked to Lhasa had gradually been tied to British India by means of treaties and other agreements, Tibet feared it would also lose its independence if it did not resist British efforts to gain access to Tibet. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama steered Tibet on an independent course. This policy frustrated the British who feared, more than anything, a Russian infiltration into Tibet, which would tip the balance of power in Central Asia.

Unable to communicate effectively with Tibet, Britain approached the Manchu Court for assistance in forcing Tibet to cooperate. The result was the conclusion, without Tibet's participation or knowledge, of two treaties (1890 and 1893) between Britain and China which had provisions regarding Tibet.

The Tibetan Government rejected these treaties as ultra vires, and this precipitated the British invasion of Tibet in 1903. The Manchu Emperor did not come to the assistance of Tibet and, as noted by Amban Yu Tai, disclaimed any responsibility for the action of the Tibetans. British troops left Lhasa within a year, after concluding a bilateral treaty, the Lhasa Convention, with the Tibetan Government.

The provisions of the Lhasa Convention necessarily pre-supposed the unrestricted sovereignty of Tibet in internal and external matters, otherwise, Tibet could not legitimately have transferred to Britain the powers specified in the treaty. The Lhasa Convention did not even acknowledge the existence of any special relationship between the Manchu Emperor and Tibet and constituted an implicit recognition by Britain of Tibet as a state competent to conclude treaties.

In an effort to persuade China to cooperate, Britain convinced it to sign the Adhesion Agreement in 1906, once again, without participation of Tibet. That agreement and the 1907 agreement concluded between Britain and Russia, confirmed the existence of a sphere of British influence in Tibet and introduced the concept of Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet, something neither Tibet, nor the Manchu Court accepted. In 1908, during Tibet's brief invasion by the Manchu army, Britain, once again, signed a treaty with the Manchus, with no independent Tibetan participation, concerning trade with Tibet.

Referring to the British concept of Suzerainty, Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India, explained:

Chinese suzerainty over Tibet is a constitutional fiction -a political affectation which has only been maintained because of its convenience to both parties. ... As a matter of fact, the two Chinese (ie, Manchu) Ambans at Lhasa are there not as Viceroys, but as Ambassadors. [Papers CD 1920, No.66, GoI to IO, 8 Jan. 1903. India Office Library]
Relations with India

When India became independent in 1947, it took over the British diplomatic Mission in Lhasa, and inherited the treaty relations of Britain with Tibet. Its recognition of Tibet was clear from the official communication the Indian Government sent to the Tibetan Foreign Office:

The Government of India would be glad to have an assurance that it is the intention of the Tibetan Government to continue relations on the existing basis until new arrangements are reached on matters that either party may wish to take up. This is the procedure adopted by all other countries with which India has inherited treaty relations from His Majesty's Government. [Notes, Memoranda and Letters Exchanged and Agreements Signed by the Governments of India and China, Vol 2, 1959, p.39]


China's White Paper speaks about its alleged "ownership" of Tibet, it discusses broad issues relating to human rights, including social, economic and cultural rights, but does not address the fundamental question of the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination.

Under international law, populations which meet the criteria of "a people", possess the right to self-determination. Governments may not deny that right, and must act in accordance with it. In past decades, the right to self-determination has primarily been applied to colonial countries and peoples, but, particularly in recent years, the right has been applied outside the context of decolonisation also.

The Tibetan people clearly constitute a people under international law, as defined, among others, by the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples. It is difficult to conceive of a better example of a distinct people, with all the characteristics fulfilled: commonalities in history, language, culture, ethnicity and other manifestations of shared identity and experience; numerousness, ie, enough persons sharing common identity and experience to warrant recognition by the international community; the existence of institutions to give expression and effect to these commonalities; the will of a people to assert the right to self-determination.

The right to self-determination means the right of a people to "determine their own political status and to determine their economic, social and cultural development" free of outside interference. [International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 1; and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 1;] Tibetans have been denied the exercise of this right since their country's invasion and occupation by China. Under international law, the PRC has the obligation to permit its exercise.

The implementation of the right to self-determination can lead to integration with a state, association with a state or independence, but the choice must be made by the people exercising their right to self-determination. This choice must be made freely, without any interference from outside that people. Thus, it is for the Tibetan people alone, without interference from China, to make the choice.

The Dalai Lama has, for many years, called on China to agree on the holding of an internationally-supervised plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Tibetan people. This, indeed, is the most desirable approach, which is entirely in accordance with the requirements of international law and practice.

Recognition of Tibet's right to self-determination

In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1723 (XVI), in which it explicitly recognised the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination. The UN called on the PRC to cease "practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination." Four years later, in 1965, the UN General Assembly expressly reaffirmed this resolution in UNGA Res. 2079 (XX).

Earlier, in 1959, the first Prime Minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, expressed his strong support for the Tibetan people's right to self-determination. Addressing the Lok Sabha, Lower House of Indian Parliament, he said, "the last voice in regard to Tibet should be the voice of the people of Tibet and nobody else."

Recently, on two separate occasions, experts on the question of rights of peoples and international law met to consider the question of Tibet's claim to self-determination.

The Permanent Peoples Tribunal, which met in Strasbourg for a week to hear extensive testimony and arguments in November 1992, found that the Tibetans meet the generally accepted legal criteria of "a people" with the right to self-determination and "are therefore entitled to exercise the right to self- determination." The Tribunal concluded that "the presence of the Chinese administration on Tibetan territory must be considered as foreign domination of the Tibetan people." Finally, in its Verdict, the Tribunal decided that, "the Tibetan people have from 1950 been, continuously, deprived of their right to self- determination." [Session on Tibet, Verdict, Permanent Tribunal of Peoples, Strasbourg, 20 Nov., 1992, pp.15 and 23, resp.]

In an unrelated conference, several weeks later, thirty eminent international lawyers from many countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas - among them some of the world's foremost authorities on self-determination - met in London for four days, to consider issues relating to the exercise of the right to self- determination by the Tibetan people. After extensive consideration of evidence, including China's White Paper, and after a lively legal debate, the conference participants concluded, in a written Statement, that:

1. under international law the Tibetan people are entitled to the right to self-determination, that this right "belongs to the Tibetan people" and that "(i)t is not for the state apparatus of the PRC, or any other nation or state, to deny the Tibetan people's right to self-determination."

2. "(s)ince the military action of 1949-50, Tibet has been under the alien occupation and domination of the PRC and has been administered with the characteristics of an oppressive colonial administration."

3. "in the particular case of Tibet and having regard to its long history of separate existence," the Tibetan people's claim to self-determination, including independence, is compatible with the principles of national unity and territorial integrity of states. [International Lawyers' Statement on Tibet - London 1993, London, 10 Jan. 1993, pp. 6-8].

The international conference statement called on the United Nations and the members of the international community urgently to take measures to promote an early implementation and realisation of the Tibetan people's right to self-determination.

In both discussions, that of the Peoples' Tribunal and that of the International Lawyer's Conference, the points of view of the Chinese Government, in particular as expressed in the White Paper, were discussed at length and fully considered. The Chinese Government was invited to participate in both events, but declined to do so. It did, however, submit to the meetings for consideration the White Paper and numerous other publications stating its point of view and arguments.


The Tibetan people undoubtedly possess the right to self- determination, by virtue of which Tibetans have the right to determine their political status and their economic, social and cultural development. Even if self-determination is primarily applicable to peoples under colonial domination or occupation, Tibetans fully qualify. The time has come for the PRC to accept its international obligations and to agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Tibet under international supervision.