Editor,
The recent actions of the HNLC have raised alarm bells which should not be ignored any longer. Over the years, they have tarnished the social fabric of the state and in recent months have openly indulged in activities and openly made bold claims which are highly condemnable.
Firstly, the boycott of days of national importance and visits of national heads of state does throw the community in poor light. This has already had an adverse effect on the thinking process of the community, in particular the students. They are feeling alienated from the significance of such days and clearly do not see themselves as being a part of the national celebrations. Most of the students look at these days as holidays, when in fact they are not. In addition, the HNLC fails to understand that the head of state is not about a person as such. It is about the chair/designation. In other words, who occupies the chair/designation is not important; rather we have to respect such office. I have a question for the HNLC, if a Khasi becomes the President of India in future, would you continue with such a boycott.
Secondly, if the HNLC is a responsible organisation (as it claims to be) then it should refrain from enticing and roping in the youth into the outfit. They have their whole life in front of them. It is true that most of the youth are disillusioned, but, that does not give the HNLC the right to take advantage of them. I agree, we do have serious governance deficit issues in the state. These will have to be sorted out by the electorate in general in elections and not by force of coercion. It is really unfortunate that HNLC welcomes such youth with open arms and make bold claims in the media. In matters such as these, the HNLC should not be proud, but rather ashamed. As responsible as they claim they are the HNLC should have shown them the right path and helped in rational thinking and encouraged them to stay home and continue as student leaders. Nonetheless, it is not too late and this escapade can still be corrected and yes all the credit shall go to them for doing so.
Lastly, I am sure everyone remembers the bandh called on the eve of Christmas last year where the HNLC re-positioned itself as the representatives of the community (jaitbynriew). Whether the bandh was successful or not is a non-issue. The question is, are the HNLC the representatives of the jaitbynriew? I say they are not. The real representatives of the jaitbynriew are those who struggle to earn their two square meals a day. They are those who practice physical and mental labour everyday of the week, they are those who try to ensure a sound and safe environment for nurturing growth and development, they are those who involve themselves in micro and small business on account of shortage of work and most importantly they are all the students who work day and night so as to bring about a progressive change in their lives and the community as a whole. Hence, the HNLC may be best advised to be careful when they call themselves ‘jaitbynriew’.
Yours etc,
Benjamin Lyngdoh
NEHU Campus
Shillong – 22
Freedom of expression is not unfettered
Editor,
On February 24th an article in a local language daily by one H.H.Mohrmen (I doubt if it is by the well-known writer I have read before) entitled ‘Ki Niam bad ka jinglaitluid ban pynpaw iala ka jingsngew (Ka Ab)’ is misleading the public.
Firstly, the writer seemed to have misread the Constitution while claiming his right under the Freedom of Expression. It is true that our Constitution has guaranteed us freedom of expression in article 19 (1) Clause A but he failed to clearly explain that this Article has certain limitations as explained in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 and the Information and Technology act of 2000 and more vividly explained in the First Amendment Act of 1951. Therefore the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute but limited by eight situations of exception; (1) the sovereignty and integrity of India, (2) security of the state, (3) friendly relations with foreign states, (4) public order, (5) decency or morality, (6) contempt of court, (7) defamation, and (8) incitement to an offence. So I would like to remind the writer that freedom of expression does not exceed laws and regulations of the country.
Secondly, the writer of the article questioned a certain Church for shutting its schools and colleges on a particular day. He is right to point out that education is an important asset. But Mohrmen fails to further read the same Art.19 of our Constitution Section 1 Clause B and C that guarantees every Indian to (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and (c) to form associations or unions. The Union (Catholic Association) with the permission of the Department of Education, has issued a notice to all its faithful to gather at the Cathedral to pray for the person who was maligned by the particular newspaper. Hence schools and colleges were closed on February 26 to facilitate this gathering at the venue cited in the notice. Then why should he mislead the masses by questioning government authority?
Thirdly, in the article the writer mentioned that the local newspaper translated the news item regarding Pope Francis from the statement of the UN Report. Is he ignorant of the Report published by UN which is available on the internet ( a public domain) about its content and report? Has he read the report published by the local newspaper as to imply that it’s a correct translation? Even a Class II student will know that the news published by the local newspaper is a translation from the English version. While translating news or a report from English to Khasi the content does not and cannot change. That is media ethics and I believe media persons often read the ‘The News Manual’ for their guidance.
Fourthly, the writer is well versed in the Holy Bible. Kudos to him… but the Word of God is supposed to transform the one who reads the Bible first before he preaches it to others. Asking others to forgive is easy but why not forgive others first and so avoid all these confusions and tension between different Christian denominations. Why can’t he also read Matthew 7:5 which reads, “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Considering all these four points, I am not sure if the article is written by the well-known writer because I believe HH Mohrmen will not make such glaring mistakes in his article.
Yours etc…
Michael Makri sdb
College of Mass Communication
University of the Philippines, Diliman