Editor,
A letter under heading “Sundry articles” also refers to my article (ST 3rd April 2012), regarding use of charcoal in Ferro-alloy industries. Here, in addition to your coherent and professional comments to the letter, I shall reiterate that dozens of reports like the India Human Rights Report (July to Sept, 2010) highlight that apart from the mining projects, the Ferro-alloy industries had denuded the forest cover in Meghalaya. The forests were systemically cleaned up to provide trees for charcoal production, the report claimed. Then Mait Shaphrang Movement, a social organization, through the RTI Act, brought to light the large scale use of charcoal by Ferro alloy industries in the state. The RTI documents revealed that around 11 such industries in Ri Bhoi district had consumed 5.61 lakh tonnes of charcoal till August 2010 resulting in large scale denudation. Besides, the state government had provided a total subsidy of Rs 6.53 crore to 10 out of the 11 industries till March 2007, but the revenue generation till 2009-2010 from these industries was Rs 6.05 crore. The loss is without calculating the figure of Rs 35 crore allotted to these industries as transport subsidy by the Centre. These are not figures of my conjecture but based on documented reports. I have been a regular columnist with your esteemed daily for almost a decade. It is usual to receive threats over phone or letters left in our mail box at home whenever a “business conglomerate’ is hurt from our writing. Such approach cannot deter us. A civilized and guided approach as advised by you is a public debate on all such issues. We as columnists are not always right and not supposed to know everything and hence draw on research and findings as above.
In fact, Government of Meghalaya had constituted an expert committee to study the deforestation to meet such charcoal needs. Mait shaphrang Movement convener Michael N. Syiem who is also a member of the committee, had been mandated with the task to recommend to the government steps to be taken to address the issue of deforestation.
Yours etc
Naba Bhattacharjee
Shillong-4
Why allot land to bureaucrats?
Editor,
The primary issue in this case is not the irregularities that have now surfaced but the allotment of prime Government land to the state’s bureaucrats. Why should government land be allotted to the elite service officers? I remember some time ago when this issue first appeared in the your paper Mr T Lyngwa issued a clarification justifying the allotment of government land, which was not only preposterous but completely without merit. The moot point is- why should government land be allotted to bureaucrats, irrespective of whether it is on lease or through sale? Allotting land to social, political, religious organizations and such like is a far cry from allotment of land to bureaucrats in the garb of a Civil Housing Society.
Another debatable issue is whether such land should be allotted to the cream of government employees or to lower rung employees whose means ensure that they will never be able to acquire their own landed property, what with skyrocketing land prices in and around Shillong. To be fair to all, then why not allot land to all categories of government workers for their housing needs?
Again, 5000 sq feet for 100 members, amounting to 5 lakhs sq feet of prime government land! Is that not a lot of Government land? I think the Government should re-consider. Finally, full credit to the office of the CAG. Under Mr AW Langstieh, a host of irregularities and malpractices are being churned up. They deserve our appreciation.
Yours etc.,
H Nengnong & K L Shanpru)
Mawlai