Editor,
In an interview to Shillong Times, (11.12.2013) Prof David Reid Syiemlieh has stated that the 150 years back when the British introduced the Inner Line System, it was done in order to protest the life and culture and of the tribal people. I challenge Prof Syiemlieh to produce the Inner Line document of 1873 where it is written that Inner Line was `for the good of the tribal community, to safeguard life, culture and number of the tribal community”. The actual document says the reverse. Being a member of the UPSC is it appropriate to spread such falsehoods when the state of Meghalaya is in turmoil. In fact in the same Shillong Times the editorial article by Erwin K Syiem K Sutnga quoted the exact words from the document from the man who authored the Inner Line system in the region which is the true representation of the document. Edward Gait, the administrator turned historian wrote of the regulations in the following terms: “The unrestricted intercourse which formerly existed between British subjects in Assam and the wild tribes living across the frontier frequently led to quarrels and sometimes to serious disturbances. This was specially the case in connection with the traffic in rubber brought down by the hill men for which there was great competition. The opening up of tea gardens beyond the border line also at times involved the Government in trouble and disputes with the frontier tribes in their vicinity. In order to prevent recurrence of these difficulties, power was given to the local authorities by the Inner Line Regulation Act of 1873 to prohibit British subjects generally or those of specified classes from going beyond a certain line laid down for the purpose without a pass or license issued by the Deputy Commissioner and containing such conditions as might be deemed necessary. As it was not always convenient to define the actual boundary of the British possessions, this line does not necessarily indicate the territorial frontier but only the above purpose; it does not in any way decide the sovereignty of the territory beyond. Such a line has been laid down along the northern, eastern, and south eastern borders of the Brahmaputra valley. There was also formerly an Inner Line on the Lushai marshes but it has been allowed to fall into disuse since your occupation of the Lushai hills. Planners are not allowed to acquire land beyond the Inner Line either from the government or from any local chief or tribe.” (Edward Gait, A History of Assam, Thacker and Spinx, London, p. 356)
Yours etc.,
Prof D J Roy Burman
New Delhi
On extension of service
Editor,
I agree with the opinion expressed by many that the Chief Secretary should retire at superannuation. It is not so much a question of competence, election or pliability as hinted by someone. Also it is not a question of being willing or not on the part of Chief Secretary to continue in service. The proposed extension would not have been sounded by the government if he were unwilling. If from all aspects it becomes a must for extension nobody should grudge. On the other hand if the service is extended for another six month, it could entangle with the long search and findings of the MPSC Chairman. Or could it be good timing? In which case honest chances of other IAS officers could be delayed and chance of senior MPSC members could be ruined for all time. Besides the much talked improvement of MPSC office work could as well as well be forgotten. But has the government forgotten its supposedly firm principle that in service nobody is indispensible?
Yours etc.,
P K Lakiang
Shillong-3