Editor,
Apropos to the article authored by BM Lanong, ( ST Dt. 19/10/2013) I have the following points to disagree with the author:-
1. At the outset the Bengal Regulation was enacted in the is” century when tribal’s of this region were backward. At that time there were many tribes who were head hunters. The British in order to avoid clashes and fights between the hill tribes and people of the plains so that their maintenance of law and order will be smooth, decided to let the tribal’s live their own lives without mixing with others. Hence the Regulation is outdated. Further, the Regulation may sound theoretically okay but it is practically impossible to implement it at the present scenario especially in the state of Meghalaya being a thorough fare to other NE states like Tripura, Mizoram and of course the Barak Valley of Assam.
2. The author refers to exceptions of Article 19 of the constitution of India that is reasonable restrictions. Everyone knows that NGOs of Meghalaya are not sensible to REASONS. Even Trading licences granted by District Councils and labour permits issued by state government are not honoured by these NGOs, in many occasions we have witnessed their high handedness in dishonor of the authority duly constituted under the Constitution of India that is the law of the land. So the exceptions under article 19 would have least practical effects in this state of affair in absence of strong mechanisms to put the NGOs under control. Hence ILP would become licence for NGOs of Meghalaya to loot people and in the long run ruin the state.
3. The Issue of ILP is a matter of life and death to Meghalaya. Once it is implemented it would be impossible to get out of it. It is like addicting to drugs, once you fall into its prey only death can free yourself from it. So the High level Committee under the leadership of Mr Bindo Lanong before arriving at its conclusion, should have given ample opportunity to the masses to react. Imagine a policy that is life long was decided within few months only and that too not enough publicity was circulated in the state and outside. Of course several meetings were held at the State Secretariat, but in all the meetings the scene was dominated by the NGOs that are pro ILP. I have attended two such meetings but looking at the intimidating postures of the FKJGP and KSU members I did not dare to raise my voice fearing that I may be beaten up while on my way home. So first of all government should tame the NGOs before having fruitful interactions with all stake holders.
4. Referring to the statement of the author about deterrence of crimes by means of ILP, I would like to say that crimes do take place any where and every where whether you have ILP or not. Do you think that tribal’s do not commit crimes? Being a lawyer himself the author must recollect how many tribal criminals/accused has he pleaded for. Based on the illogical notion of ILP, I may also apply similar logic that crimes can also be checked by having OLP (Outer Line Permit), where a person can be screened before he exits the state.
Yours etc.,
R L Syiem
Shillong-3
Negotiation a two-way street
Editor,
I think Mukul Sangma has taken a reasonable stand and does not need to “shed his ego” in the standoff with Pro-ILP groups. He has asked NGOs to give up their agitation (bandhs, violence, arson,etc) before coming for talks. What more can we expect from a Chief Minister? Sangma’s duty is to every citizen of the state. He cannot favour one section of people over another. He also has to take ground realities into account. A Chief Minister has to make the right decisions to secure the state’s future, no matter how popular or unpopular. On the other hand, NGOs have adopted a questionable “my way or the highway” stance. Despite protests and condemnation by the common people who are beaten down by bandhs and violence, NGOs have refused to relent. It is therefore NGOs who need to “shed their egos”, not Mukul Sangma. Negotiation is a two-way street and should not be confused with blackmail.
Yours etc.,
Janice Marak
Shillong-1