THE decision taken by the MUA-2 Government to set up a special court to try cases related to arson and other crimes committed as part of the ILP demand agitation, could not have come a day later. This is a landmark decision that a government mandated to govern has done and perhaps should have done much earlier. The Supreme Court order is a lever for all state governments to use against groups involved in disruptive activities that bring all functions of private and public institutions to a grinding halt. That the state government is also computing the quantum of loss occurred due to disruption in its functioning and also the loss to public property is a welcome breather for many who watch in frustration at the rapid deterioration of law and order in Meghalaya, if not its complete absence. The Police have done their utmost but they cannot be everywhere. When Government is seen as weak and vacillating, it is the citizens who feel cornered. And Governments in Meghalaya have been at the mercy of agitators far too often.
Now that the state has taken stringent measures to enforce the law of the land on all disruptors of public order there will be murmurs from some quarters that the decision is dictatorial. Is it not dictatorial to stop all public and private transports from moving after 8 pm? Is it not dictatorial to enforce the writ of a few people on a large majority without allowing free choice? Is it also not autocratic to stone vehicles including ambulances that might be plying on an urgent mission? Is it not the height of lawlessness to gut shops and public offices? What is the state expected to do but to act in the larger interests of citizens? After all citizens have signed a social contract with the state to safeguard their lives and property! For this the citizens are paying part of their incomes as taxes. Tribals might not understand this as they pay no taxes. But the irony is that it is the tax paying, non-tribal citizen residing here whose life, liberty and property is at stake and who gets no relief from the state.
Citizens too have some rights that they should access. Taking recourse to the Supreme Court ruling against bandhs they should seek redress for destruction of their private property and implead the groups holding bandhs as responsible for their losses.