Editor,
Regarding the issue raised about the Tribal status of the Chief Minister, Dr Mukul M Sangma, and the PIL hearing deferred to September 16, 2013 I wish to share some facts here. Dr Mukul Sangma is the son of Mr Binoy Bushan Maji Marak and Late Roshanara Begum. It is known to all that Mr Binoy Bushan Maji was the son of late Jothindro Manda Sangma and Late Mian Maji Marak. Dr. Sangma bears his grandfather’s clan name. Although his grandfather is no more, his father is still alive to prove his tribal identity. The Maji’s have never objected about his title. We respect him and are proud of his achievements. It is not a mistake to write his grandfather’s title. He is the son of Maji and grandson of Manda, so why does anyone have a problem with his name or title when his parents, relatives and government authorities who have issued his scheduled tribe certificate long ago did not have any? Why point fingers at Dr.Mukul Sangma’s clan name? It is an established fact ruled by the Court in the case of SDD Nichols Roy, son of JJM Nichols Roy and born to an American mother that if one parent is tribal, the child born out of that wedlock is tribal. Whether Dr Mukul Sangma is Manda Sangma or Maji Marak what impact will it have on anyone? Sensible people must move forward with positive views and constructive ideas for their own future instead of nit-picking at non-issues. In the end, it won’t be the name or the title that matters but what a person has done or achieved which counts.
Yours etc.,
L M Marak Tura
ILP- a contentious demand
Editor,
Shillongites have once again been held hostage on account of bandhs and night blockades called/supported by so called ‘civil society’ organisations on the ILP issue. As a young Khasi who is considering relocating to Shillong, these lawless developments have raised in me serious doubts about the feasibility of my plans. It has also made me ponder if simply lack of ILP is what ails the indigenous societies of Meghalaya.
To begin with, I wholeheartedly agree that influx of foreign nationals into Meghalaya is a problem. The government should take measures to protect the indigenous people and should ensure that the demography of Meghalaya does not transform like that of Tripura and maybe Assam. However, an important question is will implementation of ILP completely overcome influx? Are the law enforcing agencies solely responsible? Aren’t there any drawbacks within our own societal set-up and mindset that fosters and sustains influx?
Our tribal society is traditionally egalitarian; there is no job categorized as demeaning. Yet according to documented reports in the Tehelka Magazine, the majority of the workers in the many coal mines of Jaintia Hills are illegal migrants from Nepal and Bangladesh. Further, many mine owners (mostly belonging to our very own indigenous communities) conveniently and of course profitably deny their very existence. Economic advantage is primarily what attracts foreign influx and perhaps passivity, evidently unfettered greed and corruption within our own society drives and readily hoodwinks its existence. Another concern is the deadlock between the ruling political party and the opposition parties/ ‘civil society’ organizations (most members again belonging to our very own indigenous communities); all horn locking and rigmarole happening outside the premises of the Legislative Assembly. I can still discount the duly elected representatives prolonging a debate and deciding on the ILP or other measures to curb influx. However, it should be clear that the civil societies/ other organisations have whatsoever no proof of mandate to claim that their opinion is admissible and supported by a majority. By what authority have these self styled representatives of public opinion then managed to bully other Shillongites to restrict their intended activities time and again? Are we as a society genuinely interested in working out effective, long-term solutions? Are we interested in an optimistic vision for our Meghalaya? Or is thoughtless belligerence, endless rhetoric, short-term political gain, jingoism and heightened machoism the prevalent norm?
As a Khasi who wishes to live and contribute in a Shillong that is part of the global village of the twenty-first century, I am against the implementation of the ILP in its present form. The ILP is a strategic impediment in the development of Meghalaya as a popular tourist, music enthusiast’s and educational destination; sectors that can generate thousands of jobs and much needed revenue. Directed training (and not mere appeasement) of the indigenous people in these same sectors will not only result in gainful employment but also ensure empowered thinking in the long run. Above all, I definitely do not want to support any measure that will continually feed a parochial mindset. I pray there are many more Khasis/ indigenous people who identify with and support my aspirations.
Constructive activism, well meaning and committed political will, objective hard-work and sustained self belief, are, in my opinion likely to show that the ILP is not the dominant precondition for a better future of the indigenous people of Meghalaya.
Yours etc,
Carmelita Marbaniang
Shillong 1