Editor
In the news item “Race against time amid Planning Department dilly dally”(ST April 16, 2013), it was reported that the proposed amendment to the existing Meghalaya Protection of Catchment Areas Act 1990 is still hanging fire for over a year. The last time that the Act was heard of was when it was reported in The Shillong Times (ST Oct 11, 2012) under the heading “Catchment Areas Act amendment on track, ” where it was stated that the Government would stress on the basic objective of having a stronger say in the protection of catchment areas, including those owned by private parties. It was proposed that in the amendment, a new clause would be inserted in the Act in order to assign more powers to the concerned officers of the Forest and Environment Department for protection of catchment areas. However, it is not clear whether this additional power proposed to be assigned to the officers would enable them to enforce the Act consistently. Firstly, it would require a great deal of dedicated manpower to monitor and to ensure effective execution, because of the possibility of interferences that could arise due to lack of coordination between the Government and the other authorities responsible for the administration and management of land and other natural resources in the State. Secondly, it would require the circumvention of the existing land tenure system which gives people the liberty to utilise the land according to their needs while superseding the collective interest. In earlier reports it was mentioned that Government considered land acquisition necessary because the prevailing land tenure system thwarts the government’s best intentions. Many are sceptical if land acquisition may not be feasible because of fund constraints; because of threat over land rights and other presumptions. Government has nonetheless been acquiring land for other purposes down the years, hence critical areas in the important water catchments can also be acquired and protected while instituting other protective measures in other parts of the catchments wherever public participation is expected to be forthcoming. We cannot overlook the fact that the existing Government Protected Forests and Reserved Forests which have been in existence around Shillong since the British period continue to provide sustainable water supply to a number of localities of the city. The forests also enhance recreation, wildlife and other ecological benefits. Consequently, if we visualise that our existing water projects would be eventually supplying water not only for now but for generations to come, then Government has no alternative but to acquire the important catchments and to bring such land under its protection. This is not a big price to pay in order to sustain these projects since there would be no alternative for new ones if these projects cease to serve their purpose . However this calls for a bold decision and sacrificing other interests for a few years in order to make this happen.
Yours etc.,
K L Tariang,
Via email
ILP demand a political football
Editor,
Now that our collective conscience has been seemingly purged of the horrors of the 4th April, “Shame Awakening” Day, the ILP’ers are it again! Morning Star Sumer and his misguided brethren are again attempting to make our lives hell by stirring up trouble with unjustified demands. No amount of logical reasoning, expert opinions or debates have been successful in deterring this deluded lot from their hunt for the ILP Holy Grail. The phrase – “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” jumps to mind when faced with the flawed arguments and doomsday prophecies of Mr Sumer’s unbending little group. But this fallacious demand to impose a ’19th century solution for a 21st century problem’ (as Toki Blah aptly puts it!) has a nuisance value and the potential to create mischief in the state. Blatant threats of violence against ‘outsiders’ are being uttered every day on the Internet by certain groups and individuals demanding ILP. While 95% of such threats could be harmless bravado by youngsters letting off steam, the remaining 5% should not be taken lightly. Police have been alerted to these online threats of violence, but it remains to be seen whether they will take pre-emptive action. One certainly hopes that Vivek Syiem and his colleagues in the police department will show better foresight than they did on 4th April. Most certainly they cannot pretend to be ignorant this time round if things get out of hand. In conclusion, I would like to state that we, the citizens of Meghalaya, do not need to be misrepresented in this disgraceful manner by a bunch of self-professed scholars who are out of sync with reality and the real need of the hour, which is peace, stability and good governance leading to sustainable development! We unequivocally reject any demand for ILP which is a retrograde step in the development ladder and which will deepen the sense of alienation from the rest of the country. That may be what Morning Star Sumer wants, it may be what the KSU wants, but it is certainly not what the majority wants!
Yours etc.,
Jonathan Marwein
Pune-18
Will Govt act on the probe?
Editor
Now that the magisterial probe has established the role of KSU activists in the April 4 violence, one would like to know what action the State Govt. is contemplating against the guilty party. The fact that not a single person has been arrested so far has already sent a wrong signal to the general public. Even if specific persons could not be identified (as police claims), they should have arrested the leaders who should be held fully accountable. So can we expect to see justice now that the probe is over? Or will Govt. wait for more tourists and local people to get beaten up before taking action?
Yours etc.,
Ashis Mohanty
Kolkata
Legal drinking age
Editor,
Apropos the news report, ‘ State Govt to enhance legal drinking age to 25 years,’ in many countries a minimum age is set at which it becomes legal to drink or purchase alcohol. By definition this drinking age provides a legally enforceable tool in preventing access to alcohol by those under a certain age on or off premises. Drinking age may be distinct from the minimum legal age at which a person may purchase alcohol. Most drinking –age legislation does not cover drinking in the home with parental permission and supervision. For example this is legal from the age of 5 in the UK while in many US states an under-aged person who drinks legally in a private residence is breaking the law if they step onto public property. I would like to state that merely increasing the legal drinking age will not stop the illegal buying of alcoholic beverages by under-aged customers. The most important thing here is public awareness and information which can be achieved by putting up boards in all ‘Off ‘ and ‘On’ premises establishments. The person selling or dispensing the drinks should strictly adhere to such laws and refuse to sell or serve alcoholic beverages to the under -aged. But I strictly doubt it because it’s a cut throat business and every one out there wants to gather maximum revenue at the expense of laws and ethics . The question is who will monitor this? In Europe and North America, I have seen law enforcing agencies raiding and checking the premises from time to time. There have been instances where the defaulters have got their licenses seized, were penalised and jailed. I have even been witness to an incident where a shopkeeper ( who was in doubt) asking for ID proof of customers who wanted to buy alcoholic beverages, to ascertain their age. But, are we sure that we have the same commitment to follow the law ? There are countries where the minimum age for purchasing and drinking alcoholic is 18 ,but where there are lesser incidences of alcohol related abuses by under- aged drinkers and it is all due to strict adherence to the law which is strictly implemented by government. Only a proper monitoring by law enforcing officers and displaying of legal notices in premises involved in sale of alcoholic beverages will take this objective to its logical conclusion.
Yours etc.,
Rajesh Swarnakar,
AIWS,
Via email