Editor,
I have been reading reports written on the population growth in Meghalaya on the basis of the latest census from time to time in your esteemed newspaper. I would like to express my views in my personal capacity in this regard.
The population of India was 68.33 crores in 1981, 84.64 crores in 1991, 102.87 crores in 2001 and 121.02 crores in 2011. The percentage increase in 1991 is 23.87 over 1981, percentage increase in 2001 is 21.54 over 1991 and percentage increase in 2011 is 17.65 over 2001. From 1981 to 2011 it has been steadily declining from 23.87 to 17.65. Meghalaya population in 1981 was 13.4 lakhs, 17.75 lakhs in 1991, 23.19 lakhs in 2001 and 29.64 lakhs in 2011. The percentage increase in 1991 over 1981 is 32.86,percentage increase in 2001 over 1991 is 30.65 and percentage increase in 2011 over 2001 is 27.82. It may be seen that the percentage increase has steadily declined from 32.86 to 27.82. The reduction is steady and comparable to the national decline. This is certainly not statistically abrupt. There is absolute increase in population of around 1 lakh from 2001 to 2011 compared to 1991 to 2001 (that is 6.5 lakhs minus 5.45 lakhs). This is more likely due to natural growth rate and cannot be inferred as largely due to influx. The details of the census figures are still awaited and any speculation in this regard will not have much meaning.
Meghalaya has the highest TFR (total fertility rate) in the country which in simple terms means the average number of children a woman gives birth during her fertility period, and that is well over 4. This is almost 1.5 times the national average and I think is the single largest factor for its population growth rate much more than in the past and now over the national growth rate.
Yours etc.,
P.Naik
Principal Secretary & Chief Electoral Officer
Government of Meghalaya
Govt on right track!
Editor,
We don’t usually give government servants the props that they deserve but we believe that when credit is due, credit should be given. The Confederation of Tourism Industry Meghalaya (CTIM) is a new body and it is concerned with the promotion of tourism and the business of it in the state. On July 9, 2011 we had the honour of hosting the Association of Domestic Tour Operators of India in Pinewood Hotel. It was a grand success and none of it would have been possible without the assistance and support of NEDFI, MTDC, DIPR, the Directorate of Arts and Culture and the Directorate of Tourism especially. We take this opportunity to thank the Tourism Department and all the officers who have always been extremely helpful. The members of CTIM have greatly benefited from the business meet and more importantly the networking with the members of the ADTOI. More events are in the pipeline and with the cooperation and understanding of all stakeholders in the state, the tourism industry will grow and that can only mean good things for its citizens.
Yours etc.,
John Milbert Wankhar,
Gen. Secy,
Confederation of Tourism Industry Meghalaya
Problem of rootlessness
Editor,
Apropos the letter of Jenniefer Dkhar (ST July 20, 2011) I would like to state that a good writer writes keeping his readers in mind and a good reader learns to read within the context of what the author writes. I have never intended to hurt the sentiment of any religious group/groups. Further, it is disheartening to note that people from my own community (for which I take for granted that we belong to the same community) do not know even their own roots while trying to defend their so called traditions and customs. I would like to throw some questions at the community for it to ponder. First, is ‘custodian’ synonymous with ‘ownership’ conceptually? Second, is ‘parental property’ an indigenous Khasi concept? Third, is ownership and inheritance of property by women tenable with egalitarian and communitarian life of the Khasis that existed before the coming of the Europeans in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills? Fourth, is private ownership of property by Khasi women not based on nuclear family, individualism and capitalism and who introduced them among the Khasis? Fifth, is it really the function of the youngest daughter to look after her aged father traditionally? Sixth, is it a tradition of the Khasi man to live with his wife that he needs to be looked after by his youngest daughter in his old age? Seventh, who introduced the religion among the Khasis that requires the husband to be united as one with his wife and to live with her in her house as well as in her home? Eight, is the definition of family as per Khasi tradition similar with the current conception of it? Ninth, who was responsible for changing the figure, functions and duties of a Khasi man in the family from being ‘U Kni’(maternal uncle) to ‘U Kpa’ (father) and as ‘u hynmen para’ (brother) in to ‘ U Tnga’ (husband)? Tenth, who was responsible for changing the position of men and women in the production relations in the society? The Khasi society needs people who think, speak and act on the basis of knowledge and philosophy rather on day dreaming. We have had a number of persons who suffer from ‘ academic diarrhea’; we do not need more of them if at all, problems faced by the community were to be dealt with for solutions.
Yours etc
Batskhem Myrboh,
Via email