Editor,
I would first congratulate both Janet Moore Hujon (Culture and its Discontents) and Patricia Mukhim (Spasms of Cultural Revolution) for their well-researched articles which provide a deep insight into the cultural turmoil in Khasi society that led up to the violence of 4th April 2013. It is apparent that a lot of soul-searching has gone into these articles, and they serve as a mirror to modern-day Khasi society. That the violence against non-tribals was orchestrated by KSU leaders for political mileage is established beyond a shadow of doubt. Less obvious is the hand of certain politicians from the Opposition who were once KSU leaders themselves and, as should be now clear, are still pulling strings from behind the curtains. The tactics are familiar, the strategy is unchanged.
I will not dwell on the incident itself except to condemn it, and point out that the KSU has managed to brand itself as a fascist organization by its own hand. What lies beneath the surface of this recent turmoil is infinitely more worrying. Ever since the early 80s, both the Govt and the KSU have been engaged in a dance of death, attacking and counter-attacking each other for a slew of reasons. Time and again the Govt. has been (justifiably) accused of corruption, nepotism and mis-governance by their bete-noire, the KSU and civil society. Each time, the Govt. responded by turning a blind eye to criticism until backed into a tight corner (by violent upheavals) which forced them to suddenly and inexplicably capitulate. This ridiculous strategy served to fuel the fire with more and more groups following KSU’s footsteps by replicating their stratagem. The Govt has been out of sorts in responding to the guerrilla tactics used by these groups. The counter-stratagems of its think-tank have been weak, ineffectual and back-fired in most cases. It wouldn’t be wrong to state that the Govt seems resigned to play the role of a fire-fighter rather than formulate policies and mechanisms to mitigate governance issues and re-take the high moral ground from the activists. As a result of these shenanigans between Govt and KSU, Meghalaya has seen no development since the 1980s and is a couple of decades behind the rest of the country including north-eastern states like Tripura, Sikkim, and Assam.
The biggest concern has been the lack of vision and inability of Meghalaya’s governments to be consistent in their development policy. While one govt would announce its focus on a particular sector, successive govts would treat the same sector like a step-child and go in completely different directions to score brownie points in the game of political one-up-man-ship. No attempt would be made to nurture or revive schemes aimed at a particular sector after a change in government. The end result is a mess of incomplete, half-baked policies and schemes that have little credibility with investors and banks and therefore limited chances of commercial success. Unless the Govt learns from its past mistakes and is seen to be consistent in its development policy while, at the same time, upholding law and order with a firm hand, it has no chance of ushering in any kind of development in the state. And unless the KSU and its political godfathers give up their self-serving strategy of whipping up communal hatred and false notions of entitlement to conveniently launch themselves into mainstream politics, Meghalaya will forever remain one of the most backward states in the country.
Yours etc.,
Daisy Kharkongor
Shillong
ILP: action please Mr. CM
Editor,
For seriously concerned people it is increasingly impossible to witness today’s events through the media with equanimity. Many statements spouted by the politicos who are also the powers that be, are infuriating not only because they are palpably egoistic but also because they are not supported by creditable statements of facts. The latest are the ponderous statements of Dr. Mukul, the respected CM on merits and demerits of the ILP. In one, “…people who are determined to enter the State will not come through the gates” (Mukul speaks out against ILP in State – ST April 9, 2013) which reveals that he perceives ILP as an instrument for erecting gates along the border to contain influx: how naïve! We have many others repeated whenever the subject of ILP is discussed or raised. He has been harping on his discovery of a traditional mechanism to contain influx without defining it. He has been making statements without citing supporting facts. Worse he had made statements which are not true. One such was when on 20th March, 2013, he said on the floor of the House that the High Level Committee headed by former Dy. CM, Bindo M Lanong had not been submitted only to be corrected by his own minions: how unbecoming! His statements on ILP expose him as a legislator who does not read what has been written about the ILP, whether in the official documents or in the media. Nothing can be expected to change if people at the helm choose to be egoistic and arrogant. If he is sincere about containing influx and is not too arrogant to hear others’ views it is suggested that he carefully reads the report of the High Level Committee on influx that he has received and make up his mind about how to handle the influx issue. It is his duty to read it and to tell us what he proposes to do about it. I am sure he will find that the traditional mechanism to contain influx that he had discovered is succinctly described by one of the participants in the proceedings of the Committee.
Yours etc.,
Morning Star Sumer,
Shillong – 2
On curbing influx
Editor,
Once again the issue of influx and the demand for an Inner Line Permit (ILP) for Meghalaya has started to make headlines. There should be no attempt to belittle the concern and anxiety of the indigenous community of Meghalaya as well as all other well wishers of the state, over unregulated influx. Influx not only threatens the demographic profile of this hill state but it also has long term ramifications on the very security and integrity of India. There is also no dispute over the complexity of the problem and the multifaceted interventions required bringing about a viable, workable and effective solution.
In contemplating a workable solution to the problem certain facts, however unpleasant they are, have to be faced. The Government is burdened with the reality that past attempts to curb influx through dependence on any of its departments has been dismal failures. Migration check-gates have not worked. They only serve to encourage corruption in check-gate personnel. The Work permit scheme through the Labour department is also as porous as a sieve. The ILP too will be entrusted to a Government department to enforce. In essence it will simply mean imposing a 1879 solution on a 2013 problem. What guarantee is there that it will work? None! In all honesty the ILP, minus the noise, is simply a bamboo pole across a road. Nothing more nothing less!
A workable and viable influx control mechanism for Meghalaya will need to depend on four basic aspects. First it needs to be debated and made into law by elected representatives of our Legislative Assembly. The Government cannot be coerced by any civil society group however well meaning they may be. Secondly, we need 21st century solutions for a 21st century problem. We need to be practical not only on the requirement of our today but imaginative too on the needs of our children for tomorrow. Thirdly, apart from the implementation aspect alone there is greater need for monitoring and regular evaluation of execution. Fourthly it cannot be left to Government and its agencies alone. The greater the public participation the more effective will be the control mechanism.
Yours etc.,
Toki Blah,
Shillong-8