Editor,
One is grateful to Morning Star Sumer for his refreshing article ‘The ILP Debate’, (ST Oct 4 2012). The write up simply confirms a long held suspicion – that in Meghalaya the arrogance of intellectual bankruptcy has always been epitomised by an intolerance of other’s views. Mr Sumer and his gallant band of elder citizens ( wise too I presume and withholding their identity is most inconsiderate) have been quick in condemning RG Lyngdoh for his audacity in doubting the love, respect, admiration and high regard our erstwhile British Colonial masters had for the indigenous people of this region. It was love at first sight as far back as 1873 and the love smitten English, passed the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation and with it the Inner Line Permit system, to protect us from the evil designs others had for us. How can Mr RG Lyngdoh even doubt the compassion, integrity and philanthropy of hard nosed white skin traders?
I am also completely amazed and astounded by Mr Sumer’s insight and depth of understanding of our electoral system and the way we practice it. He strikes a sympathetic chord in my heart when he and his elders lament over the mediocrity and ignorance of our elected representatives. The word ‘elected’ however sounds a discordant note in our lamentations especially when we suddenly realise that it is we the electorate who are responsible for electing such rubbish. A pity that Mr Sumer also forgot to mention that the electorate’s love for money over good governance has more to do with our plight than anything else! Our love for instant money betrays us Mr Sumer, not RG’s refusal to agree with your wishy washy ideas and notions.
In conclusion I wish to thank Mr Sumer for his candid and forthright explanation of the Inner Line Permit system. I quote from his article, “The ILP is concerned solely with ownership, possession and alienation of land and trading in products of the land: everything else is beyond its ambit.” Influx therefore, by this definition, lies beyond the ambit of the ILP. I hope Bah Sumer remains true to his research and convictions and thus will henceforth advocate for a complete delinking of the ILP from all future debates on influx. After all one can ill afford to be labelled muddle headed or scatter brained, can one?
Yours etc.,
Alex P Solomon
New Delhi.
Govt mining fine
Editor
It is disgraceful that the present Meghalaya govt has been fined Rs 5 lakh by the court for dilly dallying on the Mining Policy. But even if the fine was Rs 50 crores it would hardly matter because the mining lobby will happily pay it on behalf of the government. We are governed by a bunch of hypocrites (MLAs, Ministers, Bureaucrats, etc) who on the one hand talk about development, while on the other hand are busy lining their pockets by siphoning off money meant for development. Every five years the same miserable lot of politicians are voted to power due to ‘money muscle’ from the mining industry. It is no wonder that all politicians keep mum about this issue and don’t like to see it raised! The draft of the mining policy is a joke and God forbid that it is adopted! It is time that the people of the state rise up against this corrupt government and free us from the shackles of the mining lobby.
Yours etc.,
Mary C Khatbuli,
Via email
II
Editor,
The Gauhati High Court has fined the Meghalaya Govt Rs 5 lakh for the delay in bringing out a mining policy. This is the second time in a row that a fine has been imposed. Two questions spring to mind concerning these delays. The first is obviously the real reason for this delay. While the Mining Minister has laid the blame squarely on the Chief Minister, the latter has chosen to maintain status quo without giving a valid explanation. What could possibly be the reason for the CM to invite the High Court’s wrath with these delays? Is there a connection with the 2013 elections? He needs to respond in a clear unambiguous manner and state timelines immediately. The second question that comes to mind is – does the draft policy effectively address the issue of environmental degradation? Does it propose to ban unscientific mining which is the root cause of the problem? If the answer is an emphatic ‘no’, then perhaps it is time the Supreme Court steps in to force the government’s hand. The present government is a mining-centric government which does not give a whit about protecting the environment from unscientific mining. We therefore need the Judiciary to play an active role in this matter in the absence of intent on the part of our politicians.
Yours etc.,
Mylene R,
Shillong-14