Editor,
On April 11, 2012, I came across a disturbing article on the front page of the Shillong Times; one read about the unedifying spectacle of several organisations coming to the defence of a rapist. Two of the organisation claimed to be women’s organisations. The act of violence perpetrated on a child of 14 years, by the way, legally comes under child sexual abuse. Nowhere in the article did I hear anything about the female child that was involved. By omission they condemned a child and condoned a criminal act. Elders in a community are expected to take on the mantle of ‘wise elders’ and pass on wisdom to the young. What is happening to Meghalaya? What are we announcing to our young people? That crime and personal gratification is fine as long as you can get a group of elites to support you? Where is the wisdom in all this?
A sexual act performed on a minor is child sexual abuse by law in this country, period. Does this state believe in the law? Apparently this sexual act was done with ‘consent’! Show me one rapist in India who claims that he engaged in sex without consent. Can a child give consent to sex? Do we allow children to elect our elected representatives? And the conclusion or ’judgement’ reached by the organisations was made based on ‘truth’- pray how was this truth established? Was there anyone on the ‘panel’ who had the sensitivity and training to deal with child sexual abuse? Or was it a matter of jumping to conclusions based on prevalent prejudices?
Yours etc.,
Dr Sandra Albert,
Shillong
Why is GNLA targeting non-tribals?
Editor,
It is sad that the terror outfit, GNLA is threatening to kill non-tribals if the state police carries out operations against them. Neither the state police nor the government is run by the non-tribals in the state so why is this minority group being made the soft target? Non-tribals have neither supported nor objected to the formation of a separate state of Garoland. So why are they being made the scapegoat in this law and order issue?
The answer is quite simple. GNLA feels there will be no hue and cry if some of the ‘non-indigenous’ people fall to their bullets. There will be no backlash anywhere in the State if some non-tribals are killed in a show of strength. It is a copybook ULFA like strategy where it killed Hindi speaking people by the hundreds in an ethnic cleansing drive. GNLA which shares close ties with the outfit from Assam seems to have picked up a leaf from their book.
But GNLA should also remember that many ‘indigenous’ people from Garo Hills live in different parts of the country. Will its brave hearts protect those people if they are attacked? This is no alarmist view but we have witnessed in the past that ULFA’s mindless killings led to hundreds of train passengers from North East being manhandled in Bihar and other parts of the country. ULFA never came to the rescue of such people.
It is alarming that there has been no criticism against these sorts of threats being spouted out by the GNLA time and again. Now the government should ensure that non-tribals or any particular community is not targeted in this mindless romanticism of militant heroism. GNLA should realize that in a fast changing and globalizing world no community can afford to remain isolated.
Yours etc.,
Subhadeep Bhattacharjee
Shillong
All is not well!
Editor,
The media reports, allegations, clarification and the probe report all being contradictory to each other reveal that all is not well with the Riverside Adventist Academy school, vis a vis the recent tragedy of suspension bridge collapse at Chichotcheng, Bajengdoba. One Grewinda Marak in his letter to the editor (ST March 23, 2012) had stated that the bridge was “constructed recently with the school’s money amounting to over Rs 14 lakhs.”To this the Principal of the school MM. Rimsu clarified (ST April 3rd) that “the money approved by the Managing Committee from the school operation was only Rupees ten lakhs and not fourteen lakh as mentioned in the letter”. Interestingly, the probe report was published the very next day (April 4) in various newspapers. The report quotes the principal as reporting that “the amount utilised for the construction was Rs 16,86,674. The amount was utilised from the school fund and there was no financial assistance from the government or missionaries. Further, the school principal in his clarification letter has also claimed that “the work was supervised by JE., P.W.D.”, while the probe report negated his claim by saying that, “ln the absence of proper technical supervision, anchorages have been prepared by tampering M.S Steel (rod) by blacksmiths, which made the anchors weak and ultimately led to the collapse of the bridge.” These glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the published reports of the school principal versus the probe panel should make the school management clarify the matter for the benefit of the public as this incident and its ramifications have the potential to damage the budding reputation of the school.
Yours etc.,
Stalin Sangma,
Via email