Editor,
The demand for the implementation of the Inner Line Permit is not something new. It has been raised from time to time, especially by our pressure groups. However, the recent move is a little alarming as it seems to be gathering support, especially from right wing elements in the State.
Inspite of the increased economic activity within the State, it appears that it has done little to assuage the frustration levels of the youth. To my mind, the reason is because the economic activity appears to be skewed in favour of those who already “have”. The “have nots” remain untouched by all the economic activity.
The recent attempts by the State Government, especially through the Basin Development Authority, to start an inclusive developmental growth will go a long way to address this problem. The Government is looking at building up the capacity of the ordinary youth to take advantage of the economic opportunities around them. They are looking to achieve this in a more focussed manner through the different Livelihood Improvement Missions of the different Line Departments. But, this will require a free and dynamic interaction with the markets, especially those outside the State, that can absorb the increased production levels.
It is my fear that the introduction of the ILP will strangle this attempt by deterring the free interaction with the much required markets for our products and services. I would, therefore, request the Shillong Press Club, or even your newspaper, to organise a public debate on this ILP issue so that we can come up with a sustaining solution.
Let us not be in a hurry to cut off our own head as a cure for our headache.
Yours etc.,
R G Lyngdoh,
CEO, LIFCOM and Chairman, MTDF.
Shillong.
via-e-mail
Wanted transparency in MPSC
Editor,
I would like to reply to the views of a concerned parent regarding the failure of his/her ward to get selected for the post of Inspector of Excise conducted by the MPSC. For one, it is not that difficult to declare the final results of any interview within a day of conclusion of the same since the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination is already available with the Commission and it is only the marks scored in the interview that are to be added for arriving at final selection. Any efficient institution would not scratch its head for the same since, as reported; the Commission is giving 90% weightage to the performance of the candidates in the Written Exams. Another thing is that a candidate may be very good academically but when it comes to performance in the competitive exams, i.e. aptitude, they may not make the mark. Whereas a candidate who may not be academically brilliant can perform extremely well in competitive exams, thereby making the cut. Regarding the early declaration of results by the Commission, it is clearly a case of ‘Damn if you do and damn if you don’t’. But I strongly support the view of the concerned parent that the Commission must declare the percentage/marks obtained by all candidates for the sake of transparency, fairness and clean image of the Commission itself. I have valid reasons in urging for the same since I know very well of two particular candidates who have contrasting scores in the Written Exams. One scored an average of 75% whereas the other managed around 55-60% but in the list of final selected candidates, alas, the latter was able to pip the former and got a higher rank. One would have imagined that the marks scored by the former in the Written Test alone would be sufficient to beat the latter comfortably even without taking into account his scores obtained in the Interview (remember the 90% weightage given to performance in the Written exams?). Sadly, fairness and transparency is history with the MPSC. This certainly speaks of something going on behind the scenes. Perhaps the Commission, its Chairman, members, etc are being pressured by outside forces. Once again I would urge the Commission to kindly declare the marks scored by all candidates both in the Written Test and Personal Interview and/or reasons for their selection and rejection in the interest of fairness and transparency.
Yours etc.
M. Majaw
Shillong-14