Monday, December 16, 2024
spot_img

No logic in Lanong’s statement!

Date:

Share post:

spot_img
spot_img

Editor,

Mr. Bindo Lanong has done it again. He once classified the forest area where the cement plants are operating as covered in shrubs; He then categorized the major surface cracks that appeared in Sohkymphor Village (as a result of rat-hole mining) as very minor and now he predicts war in the state if rat-hole mining is banned. In his mind he also seems to believe that rat-hole mining is our customary practice.

This begs these questions. Whose army will start the war? Which Hynniewtrep tribe here proudly proclaims rat-hole mining as their identity? What state is Mr. Bindo Lanong representing or is it just his state of mind!

There have been many of mankind’s customary practices or otherwise acceptable practices that have been abolished throughout the ages. Slavery, human sacrifice, sati, apartheid to name a few, have all been abolished for their inhumane treatment of human life. The rat-hole mines of Meghalaya rank no better in respect for human life and the environment too. They have claimed life and limb of exploited souls, many a children’s future, killed numerous rivers and streams, felled and cleared countless trees and wildlife habitat, poisoned pristine water sources of even nameless villages. This so called customary practice does not exist outside the purview of the law especially when it violates every existing mining and environmental law of the country. Our future is in the hands of the state government and not whether the central government wishes to interfere or not in our so called customary practice (rat-hole mining).

The call to save our water, forest, wildlife and the very survival of our people far outweighs the need of a handful of greedy mine owners who are hell-bent on obliterating our environment and everyone in it. The government should be doing what is good for the people and not doing for the good of some people.

Yours etc

C. Lyngdoh

Jowai

 DG Prison’s media uproar

 Editor,

This relates to your paper’s front page report of October 4, 2012 on the Government of Meghalaya’s institution of a magisterial enquiry into the reported irregularities in the Shillong District Jail. In this report, the chief minister, Dr Mukul Sangma, is reported to have said that an ” appropriate inquiry has been instituted to go into few developments,” relating to the administration of the district jail. Since the irregularities in the Shillong Jail, dirty linen-like, have already been unabashedly washed in the public square, courtesy the leaked confidential report of the Director General of Prisons and the accusations hurled by him at the Shillong Jail staff at a press conference, also viewed by many on local cable television, it would also be most “appropriate” if the entire irregularities, including those aired by the Shillong jail staff against the IG Prisons, are also covered by the enquiry. A more ” appropriate” enquiry is essential not only for determining how the confidential report of the DG Prisons was leaked, but to also establish whether it was “appropriate” on his part to have also addressed the media in this regard despite the confidential report he had earlier sent to the government. Since one of the terms of reference is also on the need to establish ” the reason which led to the strike of the jail staff,” the inevitability of an enquiry to be headed by an “appropriately” senior officer, commensurate to the rank and standing of the Director General of Prisons, who may have to depose before the enquiry, needs to be seriously considered. To enable the enquiry to delve deep into the developments relating to the administration of the district jail, it would be most “appropriate” for it to also note that the episode, more or less, consists of three elements, namely, the reported grievances of the Shillong Jail staff and charges made by them, the Director General of Prisons’ stand, and the rebuttal by Champion Sangma’s lawyer of charges made against him.

Those in the know are also of the view that it is not “appropriate” for an additional district magistrate (ADM) to head such an enquiry. If the enquiry is to have any credibility, then an officer of much higher rank should be heading it.

Yours etc.,

Billy P Domes,

Shillong – 79

 

spot_img
spot_img

Related articles

Will end naxalism in Chhattisgarh by March 2026: Amit Shah

Raipur, Dec 15: Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Sunday reiterated the government’s resolve to rid Chhattisgarh of...

Hindu leaders demand apology from Rahul Gandhi on Dronacharya-Eklavya remark

New Delhi, Dec 15 : As Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi compared the actions...

Parliamentarians unite over cricket match, raise awareness about eradicating TB by 2025

New Delhi, Dec 15 : In a unique blend of sports and social awareness, political leaders from both...

Armstrong murder case: 23 accused shifted to Puzhal central prison for security reasons

Chennai, Dec 15: The Tamil Nadu Prison Department shifted 23 people, accused of the murder of BSP state...