Editor,
Apropos your news item, “Tinted glasses to be banned from Monday,” (ST May 10, 2012), a move to be enforced in the state given the Supreme Court directive, this alone will not ensure safety and security to the public. A more pressing problem, when closely monitored, is the laxity in implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which relates to drunken driving. This is not only a hazard but a major cause of brawls, disputes, and anti-social acts prevalent in most parts of the city. Before this, however, one also has to consider the action inside a vehicle with or without tinted glasses, parked alongside locality streets and dark alleys, where vehicles turn into mini-bars.
Alcohol and driving do not mix, but many still love to drink and drive resulting in numerous road mishaps, not to mention anti social acts. Drunken driving is recognized as a world menace, based on statistics which reveal that road accidents cause 1.2 million deaths and 50 million injuries around the world each year. A recent Tehelka report states that road accidents are the third biggest cause of deaths in India and it is quickly catching up with malaria, which kills over 2 lakh people every year. With 1.35 lakh deaths a year, India is the world leader in road accident fatalities and 70 percent of them are caused by drunken driving. I dread to think how much Meghalaya is contributing to the above figures.
What is required urgently is the of strict implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applicable under Section 185 and 203 which says – for the purposes of this section (185), the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle; and for the purposes of this section (203) “breath test”, means a test for the purpose of obtaining an indication of the presence of alcohol in a person’s blood carried out on one or more specimens of breath provided by that person, by means of a device of a type approved by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purpose of such a test.
While it is widely understood that laws are made to be implemented, the question is why has drunken driving not been taken seriously by the law enforcers, and for how long should Meghalaya remain unfazed by the loss of lives through drunken driving? Ironically, very often the law enforcers themselves breach the law, since police vehicles, whether on patrol or on VIP escort duties are often found ferrying inebriated personnel (the drivers themselves none the better). When accosted by well meaning, sober, citizens these sozzled policemen are not only abusive but quick to reach for their guns as if they are not under any rule of law. Even more appalling is the condition of local taxi drivers who have been found openly consuming alcohol openly in broad daylight, not to mention their attitudes, late afternoon onwards.
It appears that the penalties against drunken driving “are laughable” and that is why tipplers are running amok on our roads. But Meghalaya should start somewhere, especially within the city limits. With the apex court directive to ban tinted glasses on motor vehicles, we can only hope that the departments concerned with road safety and area security will also look into the other more serious predicament of drunken driving but starting inside out.
Yours etc.,
Merlvin J. Mukhim,
Via email
Sanitising the electoral roll
Editor,
The on-going controversy over the inclusion of the names of the so-called doubtful/dubious voters in the electoral roll of the State is being downplayed by allegation of misquoting of the CM’s statement on the State’s so-called right “to modify” the Election Commission’s directives to the State’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO). It is clear that Prashant Naik the State’s CEO and the Additional CEO had gone beyond their mandate vide Section 20 of the RP Act, 1951 in trying to interpret Section 20 – Meaning of “ordinarily resident” in the Representation of the People Act, 1950. In this process they had clearly misinterpreted the meaning of the phrase “ordinarily resident” to the extent that of stating that a person from one state can be enrolled as a voter in a state into which he has migrated even for one day. While leaving this matter to the law experts to enlighten us, it is relevant to state here the general view about a citizen’s right as a voter in the country.
Ex-CM Dr. Donkupar Roy has clearly stated the general view that people from other states of the country have the constitutional right “to exercise their franchise in their respective states”. A citizen of Meghalaya has no right of franchise in any state other than his own – where he was born and brought up and exercised his right as a citizen for the most part of his life – or in a state where he might have migrated legally. Dr Roy’s statement is unexceptional. It is strange that the EC should seek clarification on it. It is hoped that the newly constituted committee “comprising of all political parties of the State” would look into this matter and seek the EC’s interpretation and intention in the implementation of its directives to the State’s CEO. Both the letter and the spirit of the law should be strengthened and implemented.
Whatever the interpretation of the provisions of the RPA 1950, it is expected that the representatives of all political parties and NGOs taking part in the discussions of the committee would drive home our perception that a citizen of any state should not have the right to vote in any state other than that where he/she is a bonafide indigenous citizen. If he/she is ordinarily resident or a migrant or in service in another state he only has the right to vote in his home state –by postal ballot, not in the state of domicile.
It is not necessary to repeat here the litany of pros and cons that would ensue as a consequence of the interpretation/misinterpretation of the provisions of the law. One needs only to look around and reason why the States of Assam and Tripura are in the mess that they are in today, to appreciate our concern about the need to sanitise the state’s electoral roll. We may well perceive in this an insidious plan to annihilate our race – for whose benefit? Do we want to go down that road too?
If we do not want to go down that road we still have time and, more importantly, the right, to shape our future, under the umbrella of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, by speedily enacting laws to protect our traditions and customary laws. It is rather late in the day but we still have the opportunity. Are we willing to take this opportunity now? If we are, we should forthwith force our government to begin the exercise by enacting a strong “Possession of Land and Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act” to be followed by many other enactments to safeguard our rights under the constitution and thus to prevent the annihilation of the race.
Yours etc,
Morning Star Sumer,
Via email