Editor,
The wild allegations drummed up by Prof. S.B. Prasad in his letter to the editor entitled, “NEHUTA Election 2013-14″(ST, December 14th, 2013) accusing the incumbent President of NEHUTA of ‘illegality etc, is unfortunate. The enlightened reading public need to know that Election Committee of NEHUTA is a body independent of NEHUTA Executive and works according to the constitutional powers vested in it. If anyone has any problem in the matter of authority of the Election Committee to conduct elections of NEHUTA as per prescribed procedure such as taking decisions that are necessary in the conduct of elections, the matter should be raised in the right forum (as prescribed in the Constitution) and not in the media. Regulation 2 clause 5 (xvii) of the NEHUTA Constitution states, “any appeal regarding the conduct of election or the decision taken by the Election Committee shall be made to the convener…”. The undersigned, as President of NEHUTA has not received any such complaint from the Convener, of the Election Committee. Therefore his allegation is totally misplaced, as NEHUTA can take up any complaint only if it is forwarded through the duly constituted election committee.
By not raising such complaints in the right forum as prescribed by the Constitution Prof. Prasad has displayed an ulterior motive of obstructing the democratic process by maligning the election process and misleading the public. As the majority of NEHUTA members are convinced that elections are conducted as per the Constitution in both letter and spirit, no one paid any heed to the rumours spread by Prof Prasad solitarily. Even before the new body has taken over Prasad has predicted it to be ‘illegal’. His allegation that final list of candidates was not given after scrutiny of nomination papers is false and baseless. Indeed, the list of candidates is finalized only after nominations are received for all the posts. As nominations were not received for the major posts of executives such as General Secretary, Joint Secretary and Vice-President, so the Election Committee re-invited nominations. Election Committee is empowered to fill up any consequent vacancy that arises in NEHUTA by conducting the election process at any time as and when they arise. Further the election committee is empowered to meet any eventuality in due course of conducting election by way of decisions of the said Committee, which the Election committee did rightly perform in this case. As far as withdrawal of nominations after they are found correct is concerned, candidates are free to do so if they wish to. If Election committee would have denied the right of applying for any vacancy to anyone, Prof. Prasad would have been correct in pointing to violation of basic democratic right of a member. In his letter, Prof Prasad questioned inclusion of members in the voters’ list despite them being regular members who paid their membership fees three weeks before the date of election, as per the NEHUTA Constitution Regulation 2, clause 2 (iv). This shows his undemocratic attitude to deny voting right to the bonafide members of the Association.
It seems Prof. Prasad has problems with three different bodies, namely Election Committee, NEHUTA Executive 2012-13 and the newly elected NEHUTA body, 2013-14. Therefore I am neither entitled to respond on behalf of all the three bodies nor am I empowered to speak on behalf of any one of them unless I am so authorized. My response here is that of an objective observer so that his letter does not create confusion in the public mind.
The fourth entity with which he also has a problem is the NEHUTA Constitution. His letter is a poor attempt to criticize the NEHUTA Constitution in order to create discord and rift so that the election process is hampered and the new body of NEHUTA cannot take charge of leading the NEHUTA. Let me assure all that NEHUTA is constituted by elected leaders, thinkers and intellectuals, capable of upholding everyone’s democratic rights in the University. Hence the democratically elected body of NEHUTA, 2013-14 is perfectly legal, constitutional and above all suspicion.
Yours etc.,
Prof XP Mao,
President
NEHUTA
Traffic law equal for all
Editor,
No member of the public is expected to obey the traffic law. But it is nauseating when policemen themselves break the law. For quite some time now the public have observed one vehicle with a red beacon bearing registration no ML 02-4004 double parking on the road in front of the Laitumkhrah Presbyterian Church on Sunday afternoons. This VIP vehicle juts out almost to the middle of the road. This has caused a lot of inconvenience to commuters who ply their vehicles on this stretch of road at that time. The vehicle obviously belongs to a senior police officer. Ordinary citizens would have got their vehicle tyres clamped if they committed such an offence but the owner of this particular vehicle seems to think he not only owns the road but being a law keeper he can do whatever he likes. In fact no one dares to touch him. Secondly the presence of the vehicle here at that point of time every Sunday would indicate that the owner probably attends the weekly church service. But is it appropriate that the government vehicle should be used for private duties such as attending church service? Perhaps the official is on secret service in the church and is expected to be called for emergency services any time. That is of course anybody’s guess. But the higher ups in the police department should better take note of this.
Yours etc.,
P. Marbaniang,
Via email