Editor,
I am grateful to the people and leaders of Meghalaya for having reposed confidence in me since 1980. It is a matter of great pride and privilege to have served the state for 33 years with their support. Now that I am about to retire within 2 years, I need to go home and look after myself and my aged and ailing parents. That was the only reason why I had opted for home deputation as permissible under the All India Service Rules which was kindly considered by the Govt of Meghalaya and Central Govt. But of late, your esteemed paper has been publishing stories about selection and appointment of DGP, Meghalaya, involving my name knowing fully well that I am on home deputation for 3 years since May 2012, drawing me into unnecessary controversy and especially your publication dated Nov 6, 2012 needs rebuttal. Hence this rejoinder.
Your headline started with accusation “Kezo‘s flip-flop stance embarrasses State Govt.” In fact, no one in authority had formally communicated to me or through the State Govt of Nagaland asking for my willingness for repatriation before taking the final decision by the Govt of Meghalaya. I have been a humble and loyal govt servant for over 3 decades and I don’t disobey the Govt I serve. My personal interests do not matter, if there is a formal Govt order I will carry it out regardless of my personal convenience. Hence the allegation is wrong and incorrect. How can I join as DGP, Meghalaya abandoning my present post when I am not formally released by the State Govt of Nagaland and Govt of India? I don’t decide my own posting and I respect the Govt I serve.
Your report that Kezo had shown his willingness to be repatriated to Meghalaya before the meeting of the State Security Commission (SSC) is false. No one in authority ever formally asked me for my willingness for repatriation through the Central Govt or State Govt of Nagaland. A police official is supposed to have remarked that “Mr. Kezo is unable to decide…dilly-dally has gone on for a whole week… how can he be a leader? Who is this self appointed police officer passing judgment on my ability to take a decision or leadership?
Delay in filling up the DGP’s post is supposed to have created problems for Addl. DGP Rajiv Mehta from becoming Director, Narcotics Control Bureau at the Centre. If his appointment is delayed or forfeited, it is not my fault. I have not posted him anywhere. The exclusion of Mr PJP Hanaman, IPS from the panel of senior police officers by the SSC was unjustly attributed to the “indecision of Kezo”. When has Kezo’s personal decision or interest become so important? Did I have any role in the selection of candidates? How could I decide or not decide about any subject I do not know? In fact, earlier your esteemed paper had already excluded his name from the probable candidates because his brother and nephew were supposed to be contesting the next general election. So, in what way, am I responsible for his exclusion from the panel or for his failure to become DGP of Meghalaya?
It was also stated that Mr S. Goswami, IPS 1977 and Mr DK Pathak, IPS 1979 had not served in Meghalaya. This is misleading. Goswami was Addl SP, East Khasi Hill District, and Pathak was SDPO Baghmara, SP William Nagar besides other postings. Both of them served Meghalaya in various capacities with distinctions. I hope that now your readers are fully apprised of the facts and position that I have taken with the full consent and approval of the State Govts of Meghalaya and Nagaland and Govt of India. On my part and family, we shall always cherish the wonderful times we had with the people of Meghalaya forever.
Yours etc.,
Besesayo Kezo, IPS,
Via email
Our reporter replies: We have no malafide intent in our reporting. It is our duty to report the confusion created by Mr B Kezo’s inability to join as DGP after having been recommended by the State Govt from the list of five officers in order of seniority. Evidently there is a huge communication gap here and the media cannot be blamed for that!
Corruption in high places!
Editor,
I have been closely following the recent events reported in your paper which all seem to have a common theme – corruption in high places by politicians and senior bureaucrats. While some of these events are straightforward cases of corruption involving bribery, forgery, embezzlement and exertion of undue influence (such as the Forest Land scam and the Teacher Recruitment scam), others are somewhat more complex and not easily recognizable as offences of corruption. In this regard I would like to point specifically at the Mining Policy and the manner in which it has been introduced.
The Mining Policy has been in the eye of the storm for a long time due to the procrastination of successive state government who share a mutually beneficial relationship with the mining lobby. It was only after the High Court fined the Meghalaya Govt twice in a span of 12 months that the Policy finally came to light. A closer look at the fine print in the policy reveals a cleverly disguised tool that seeks to empower the powerful mining lobby to carry on their unchecked destruction of the environment by giving it legal sanction. The Minister for Mines who is also the Dy CM, Mr Bindo Lanong is the chief proponent of rat-hole mining who, one suspects, is taking orders from the mining mafia. Time and again this minister has tried to obfuscate the issue by being dismissive about documented environmental hazards and ongoing destruction in the coal mining areas. He has even gone so far as to justify rat-hole mining by terming it a traditional practice of the indigenous people! He has either ignored or bulldozed all genuine concerns from the community and stuck to his guns on this point. Actually one needs to admire Lanong’s grit and determination while fighting this battle against environmentalists and common people. If only he could display the same level of grit and determination in doing his job honestly and fighting for the right reasons! Introducing the Mining Policy in its present form will spell environmental doom for Meghalaya. Minister Bindo Lanong is therefore equally guilty of corruption because he has brought in a dubious policy that seeks material gain for one section of society (the mine owners) at the cost of all others. His actions and methods are questionable and deserve investigation by a Central Agency like the CBI.
Yours etc.,
Aaron Nongrum
Saket,
New Delhi