AUDIO & VIDEO- M M PRODUCTION

एम एम प्रोडक्शन प्रेजेंट्स २०१६ में लेक अनलक मस्ती विडिओ सोंग एक नजर देल जाओ

m m p video presents

Elo saran maa

shingh savari durgaa mai

मिथिला राज्य किऐक?

मिथिला राज्य किऐक?

Pravin Narayan Choudhary

* संवैधानिक अधिकार सम्पन्नता लेल 
* संस्कृति आ सभ्यताक संरक्षण लेल
* विशिष्ट पहिचान 'मैथिल' केर संरक्षण लेल 
* पलायन आ प्रवासक खतरा सँ मिथिलाक रक्षा लेल
* आर्थिक पिछडापण आ उपेक्षा विरुद्ध स्वराज्यसम्पन्न विकास लेल
* स्वरोजगार संयंत्र - उन्नत कृषि - औद्योगिक विकास लेल

* बाढिक स्थायी निदान लेल
* शिक्षाक खसैत स्तर में सुधार लेल
* मुफ्त शिक्षा आ शत-प्रतिशत साक्षरताक लेल
* गरीबी उन्मुलन - हर व्यक्ति लेल रोजी, रोटी आ कपडा लेल
* जातिवादिताक आइग सँ जरि रहल समाजमें सौहार्द्रता लेल
* ऐतिहासिक संपन्नताकेर द्योतक धरोहरकेर संरक्षण लेल

* पर्यटन केन्द्रकेर स्थापना, विकास व संरक्षण लेल
* यात्रा संचार के लचरल पूर्वाधारमें ललित विकास लेल
* जल-स्रोत केर समुचित दोहन लेल
* मिथिला विशेष कृषि उत्पाद केर व्यवसायीकरण लेल
* जल-विद्युत परियोजना - जल संचार परियोजना लेल
* मिथिला विशेष शिक्षा पद्धति (तंत्र ओ कर्मकाण्ड सहित अन्य विधाक) अध्ययन केन्द्र लेल

* पौराणिक मिथिलादेश समान आर्थिक संपन्नता लेल
* पौराणिक न्याय प्रणाली समान उन्नत सामाजिक न्याय व्यवस्था लेल
* जन-प्रतिनिधि द्वारा वचन आ कर्म में ऐक्यता लेल
* भ्रष्ट आ सुस्त-निकम्मा प्रशासन तथा जनविरोधी शोषणके दमन लेल
* लचरल स्वास्थ्य रक्षा पूर्वाधार में नितान्त सुधार लेल
* मुफ्त बिजली, पेयजल, शौच, गंदगी बहाव व्यवस्थापन लेल

स्वराज्य सदैव आमजन हितकारी होइछ। मिथिलाक गरिमा अपन स्वतंत्र अस्तित्व १४म शताब्दीक पूर्वार्द्ध धरि कायम रखलक। बादमें विदेशी शासककेर चंगूलमें फँसैत अपन गरिमासँ क्रमश: दूर भेल। एकर समुचित प्रतिकार लेल भारतीय गणतंत्रक विशालकाय शरीरमें आबो यदि राज्यरूपमें संवैधानिक मान्यता नहि पायत तऽ मिथिलाक सांस्कृतिक मृत्यु ओहिना तय अछि जेना एकर अपन लिपि, भाषा ओ समृद्ध लोक-परंपरा-संस्कृति आदि लोपान्मुख बनि गेल। बिना राजनीतिक संरक्षण आ समुचित प्रतिनिधित्वक प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण ६५ वर्षक घोर उपेक्षा सोझाँमें अछि। अत: राष्ट्रीयता आ राष्ट्रवादिताक सशक्तीकरण संग-संग क्षेत्रीय संपन्नता आ सभ्यताक संरक्षण लेल मिथिला राज्य बनेनाय परमावश्यक अछि। 

Separate Mithila State Samithi

Separate Mithila State Samithi · 743 को यह पसंद है.

6 मिनट पहले · 

• “Political will and Parliament Bill are enough for formation of Mithila State as per the Constitutional procedures and requirements. Neither the consent of Bihar Assembly, nor the Amendment to the Constitution is required for carving out a new territory from the boundaries of present Bihar and Jharkhand.”[1]
  
  The Constitution in Article 3 vests the power to form new States and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing States in Parliament alone which may pass the law on the subject. The Bill for the purpose can be introduced in either House of Parliament on the recommendation of the President which in fact means recommendation of the Union Government as the President acts on the advice of the Union Government.
  
  The Constitution, however, is silent on the subject of the criteria for forming States doing nothing more than giving the power of formation of States to Parliament. While giving power exclusively to Parliament may be conducive to the integrity and unity of India, it gives no guidance to Parliament or a body created by Parliament as to the principles for the formation of States. This brings out the basic deficiencies in the Constitution of our Republic which is often lauded for having stood the test of time but which in fact leaves several important aspects untouched.
  
  The only attempt in the pre-independence days to provide a logical basis for the formation of States was the Motilal Nehru Committee Report[2] of 1928 which recommended the formation of States on a linguistic basis. Major languages provide the cultural base of the life of the Indian people and should be the appropriate base for State formation, it asserted.
  
  This principle was accepted by the major party in the forefront of the fight of the Indian people for independence, namely, the Indian National Congress. Even in the pre-independence days, the regional committees of the Congress were formed on the basis of linguistic areas. Thus the four Kannad speaking districts in Bombay province went with the Congress Committee for Karnataka covering the rest of the Kannad region. The British rulers, having no use of the culture of the Indian people, had constituted large provinces purely on the administrative criteria. There were the three major ‘regulated provinces’ of Bombay, Madras and Bengal with the major cities of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta as their headquarters. The Bombay province stretched from Sindh to Gujarat, Western Maharashtra and Northern Karnatak districts. In 1935 Sindh was separated to become an independent province. The Madras province covered the Tamil land, Rayalaseema and coastal Telugu areas and the Karnataka districts of South Canara. The Bengal province once covered the whole of Eastern India. Later Assam, Bihar and in 1935 Orissa became independent provinces. As British rule extended, new provinces were formed. The United Province covered the vast Ganga-Yamuna area stretching from the Himalayan regions of Garhwal and Kumaon to the planes of Brijbhoomi, Bundelkhand to Lucknow, Banaras and Allahabad. The Central Province consisted of both Marathi (Vidarbha) and Hindi (Mahakoshal) areas with the capital Nagpur and also included the largest Bastar district and other tribal areas. Punjab in the Northwest covered the whole of Punjab (Western now in Pakistan and Eastern in India) including the hilly areas and Hindi speaking Haryana.[3]
  
  THE LEGAL PROVISIONS
  
  Laws regarding this issue have been clearly laid down in Article 2 and Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. Article 2 reads as, “Admission or establishment of new States.—Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit”.[4]
  
  When the writers of Constitution were drafting Article 3, our nation was not fully integrated or well organized as some Princely States were not included and States Reorganization Commission was working on forming linguistic states. Keeping in view the need for formation of new states, an enabling provision giving power to the Parliament was incorporated in Article 3. For this purpose the Constitution provided a simple and easy process for ‘reorganizing’ a new state. Article 3 says that Parliament can enact a law to reorganize the existing states by separating new state out of territories of the existing states, or by uniting two or more states or parts of states, or by uniting any territory to a part of any state, or by altering their boundaries, or by separating territory from, or increasing or diminishing the area of, or by changing the name of, a state. If the Parliament acts as per these provisions of the Constitution, it will automatically effect a change in the Schedules, without necessitating a separate Constitutional Amendment. The Bill approved by the Parliament would change those schedules to suit the new state. Hence Constitutional Amendment is also not required.[5]