Editor,
As per the news reports (ST Oct 18, 2016) the parents of a student studying in Class II in Shillong Public School have sought apology within three days from the Principal and two teachers who had inflicted corporal punishment on the child. As concern parents I would like to add that the specific definition of a Principal is a person in charge of a school. But in this school it clearly implies that the principal is indulging in dictatorial acts.
Parents send their children to school so that they get quality education and learn social skills as well. But clearly this is not happening in our schools today. I doubt if there is even a subject called “Moral Science” for the students to teach them ethics and manners. From the looks of this case it appears that the teachers and Principal are more in need of moral science lessons. What a shame for the institution that a Principal should be inflicting violence on a small kid of Class II. Obviously a Class II student would make mistakes, but hitting the kid brings the Principal down to the same level- that of a kid. Another point I wish to make is that in India it seems Moral Education is no longer part of the curriculum. And yet inculcating values of honesty, truthfulness, kindness etc can go a long way in curbing various ills of society especially in this particular case.
I strongly urge upon the Commissioner and Secretary Education to treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves and take appropriate action.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
NEHU trying to escape scrutiny
Editor,
The Moot Court incident still rankles. My cry for justice since October 8, 2016 is still not answered by the concerned organizers. They only replied through this esteemed paper (letter to the editor) and that by someone who is only a third party to the issue. I expected a reply directly from the conveners about the unjust, unfair and unprofessional action taken, not by the third party but by the organizers, during such a prestigious competition which at the end of the day has turned to be a mockery. I believe the conveners have the full authority to organize such a programme but they are also responsible for every action taken during the competition. So why the silence now? Is this an acceptance of wrongdoing and then walking away as if nothing had happened? In fact this is a wrong done not only to my team but to the larger public. The programme is being organized out of the Government funds given to NEHU which implies that it is public money. Therefore, the society needs an explanation not only from me because the issue is not only of individual interest but of public interest at large.
However, the silence of the concerned organizers has convinced me that they had deliberately committed the said act for personal interests. And it also makes me further presume that the convener or organizers had manipulated the whole thing and then feared that if the cat is out of the bag then the things would blow up on their faces. I wonder there is corruption in this whole game? Do the NEHU authorities take this issue seriously? Will they demands accountability? The society needs answers! And I am part of the society aggrieved by such unjust action.
Also let me declare upfront that write this letter for the sake of justice, because we should all realize that if there is lack of accountability and transparency in a temple of learning then the society is assured of destruction since the products of NEHU will become the pests that corrupt the whole humanity. So, respected conveners/ organizers we expect a reply from you and not from any third party.
Yours etc.,
Peter Aiborlang Dohkrut
Shillong- 17
Meghalaya
Polygamy in Islam
Editor
Please refer to the editorial comments on Polygamy and Talaq (Divorce) (ST Oct 10, 2016), that Muslim men have the right to triple talaq and polygamy and women do not have the same right.
In this connection it is important to know what the Holy Quran says on polygamy. As a rule, Islam recognises only the union of one man and one woman as a valid form of marriage. Under exceptional circumstances, it allows man to have more than one wife. It is is important to know what is that exceptional circumstance which allow polygamy. In the Chapter IV (Sura IV), Verse 3 (Ayat 3) of the Holy Quran, “AL-NISA” (The Women) revealed in Medinah stated as follows– “And if you fear that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans (or widows) then marry who seems good to you from amongst women (two at a time) or three or (up to) four. But if you are afraid that (even then) you will not be able to keep equality towards orphans, then marry only one.” The above verse deals chiefly with the circumstances arising out of the battle of Uhud which was fought during the year 624-625 A.D. where a large number of Muslims were killed by the enemy and the decimation had largely decreased the number of males. Hence many orphans were left in the charge of widows who found it very difficult to procure the necessary means of support. The above verse (which was revealed immediately after the end of the battle of Uhud) is where permission to have more than one wife was given under the particular circumstances of the Muslim society then existing. It must be understood clearly that polygamy was allowed at that time for the welfare of orphans and not for the needs of the individual. The verse also clearly mentions that if you fear that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, marry women (the mother of the orphans) up to four but only on the condition that you are just to all of them. And if you cannot give equal justice to them, then marry only one.
This is the only passage in the Holy Quran that speaks of polygamy and it will be seen that it does not enjoin polygamy, it only permits it, and that too conditionally. Following what has been stated above, if any man thinks that a blanket permission was allowed in the Holy Quran to have more than one wife, then he is completely wrong and against the teachings of the Holy Quran teaching. So in today’s generation, to say that Muslim men have the right to polygamy is false.
Yours etc.,
Kamal Khongrymmai
Shillong-6