By Paul Lyngdoh
The sixtieth anniversary of India’s Parliament came close on the heels of a potentially powerful onslaught on the institution, courtesy Anna Hazare and group. The reverberations were far more potent than the attack unleashed by Afzal Guru and his lackeys. The Sunday sermons on May 13 led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were obviously overshadowed by the repeated jibes of Team Anna and sought to assert both the primacy and the supremacy of Parliament as the custodian of people’s faith in democracy. And rightly so! It is quite all right- even commendable- to raise the banner of revolt over rising corruption and consequent slump of moral standards in public life. But the boundaries- the Lakshman Rekha- have to be clearly demarcated : an assertive and alert electorate is a sine qua non of a successful democracy. But there is the danger of that electorate turning despondent and cynical – even anti-democratic- if the extremist view of some elements of that movement portraying all politicians as rascals and murderers gains acceptability. There can be no greater disservice to the nation than that, for it would rob the common man of the only weapon at his disposal as a citizen: his faith in his ability to churn and turn the wheels of governance.
It certainly is a moment for introspection for all leaders and political parties. How far have we been able to deliver? How do we deal with the breakdown of communication channels and the erosion of trust leading to frequent logjams of proceedings? What panacea are we offering for the corrosive influence of money and muscle power in determining the fate of most Parliamentary constituencies with even Rajya Sabha seats being auctioned ? We may look at our neighbours with a fair degree of disdain and pat ourselves in the back for the singular achievement of having kept the flames of democracy burning for so long, but is length alone a yardstick? What about the depth and breadth of Indian democracy? As I watched the joint session of the Parliament last Sunday evening, I was struck by the contrast between the video images of Nehru’s Tryst with Destiny address and President Pratibha Patil’s entry to address the House. The image of a land-grabbing, globe-trotting Head of State with neither the charm of a Nehru nor the erudition of a Dr. Radhakrishnan nor the simplicity of a Shastri does little to edify the institution around which the lives of more than a billion people revolve.
MINDING THE MINES
Meghalaya’s mining policy- or the absence of one- has been the staple of endless debates and speculation. The latest controversy to emerge centred on a piece scripted by Jowai-based columnist, HH Morhmen in which he launched a scathing attack on the Minister in charge, Bindo M.Lanong, for his alleged acts of omissions and commissions. The counter-attack came by way of an FIR lodged by a few individuals owing their allegiance to Mr Lanong. My views were sought by quite a few reporters. What does the UDP have to say? Is this not an attempt to muzzle the media? I stuck to my ground: first, the article was directed at Bah Bindo in his capacity as Mining Minister and hence the party is in no way in a position to explain the alleged delay in the announcement of a mining policy. That question can only be answered by the department in question. Second, whoever filed the FIR did so in their individual capacity and probably as supporters and well-wishers of Bah Bindo, for which as the UDP’s spokesperson I am not answerable.
But to come to the larger issue of media freedom and responsibility vis-à-vis the political establishment. I am a firm believer in the unfettered freedom of expression and articulation of the media so long as it is based on well-established, properly researched and incontrovertible facts. You are entitled to your opinion as long as you get your facts straight. Period. And the police station is hardly the best of platforms to square up with even obdurate, motivated journos with an agenda to accomplish. Senior journalist Vinod Mehta’s well-reasoned article “Watched On our Watch’ (Outlook, 14 May 2012) is worth referring to. He posited that the loss of credibility of the media resulted because of frequent transgressions by media persons and quoted another journalist, Inder Malhotra, who scribbled a note to Mehta:”If we don’t regulate ourselves, we will be regulated by force”. Where does that leave politicos and where do they turn to whenever they feel aggrieved? Perhaps a regulatory mechanism at the state level comprising of eminent persons from diverse walks of life can be institutionalized with clear delineation of roles and responsibilities. The Commission, if and when constituted, needs to be fairly represented to endow it with the seal of impartiality and fairness and its pronouncements and edicts would then be taken seriously by all stakeholders and moulders of public opinion.
CRYING WOLF HABITUALLY
The familiar notes of dissent and opposition to the move to allot land to civil servants in the new Shillong township smack of sheer lack of clarity and focus on the part of the putative defenders of the indigenous people’s interest. While everyone would happily join the refrain that the old city is bursting at the seams and serious efforts should now be made to shift the focus to the new township, few have been able to appreciate the fact that the process cannot take off unless a vibrant civilian population is encouraged to settle in the township. We missed the first bus in 2006 when the move to locate the assembly complex at Mawdiangdiang was thwarted by, ironically, the very people who should have been at the forefront in ensuring that the project would kick-start the growth of the new city. An official resolution adopted by the State assembly then sealed the fate of the project. This time around, the dwelling units for the civil servants in a land to be leased to a registered society – with ownership vested firmly in the State Government of Meghalaya- would not only have been a boon to serving bureaucrats, but, more importantly, would have given a fillip to the growth of new Shillong in terms of vital infrastructure like link-roads, water and power. And, pray, how does one have a township with no civilian population to people it except sparsely populated villages that hardly connect with each other? I am sure my predecessors in the Department of Urban Affairs- Charles Pyngrope, Kong Roshan and R.G.Lyngdoh- were conscious of this vital fact when giving their initial nod to the proposal. I, for one, am not apologetic for having pushed it forward and am glad that RG has spoken out in its favour. The verdict is out: unless human settlement is encouraged and key sections of the population take the lead in doing so, New Shillong would continue to be a ghost town housing an assortment of Government establishments, educational hubs and North-east India’s most ambitious health intervention project- the NEIGRIHMS.
PARTING SHOT
National Conference MP G.N.Ratanpuri ‘s narration of the following episode on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of India’s Parliament is worth reproducing:
”Sixty years ago, when Mr Rishang Keishing (elected to the first Lok Sabha in 1952 from Manipur) met the PM (Nehru) for the first time in the corridors of this august House, he wanted to know whether Mr Nehru would like to meet an emissary of Naga rebel Zapu Phizo. ”Why should I meet them?” retorted the PM. Mr. Keishing replied, ”Why are you shouting at me? I wanted to hear a simple ‘yes’or ‘no’ from you”.
As one of the two surviving MPs of the first House elected sixty years ago, I am sure Mr. Keishing would agree that nothing much has changed at the ground level, that North-East India’s integration with the mainland has not gone beyond political and geographical spaces, that emotional integration is still a distant dream and that as North-easterners (as Dana’s and Richard’s deaths remind us) we must resolve not to give in but steel ourselves with resolution as we position ourselves for our rightful space under the Indian sun.