Editor,
I would like to add-on to the first letter that was published in your esteemed daily on 27th March, 2014. Here, the focus is more upon the inherent nature of politics and political activity. Hopefully, this will help us to look at things in the proper perspective by actually putting the bigger picture in mind. Also because much of the writing and talk on the issue is a perfect case of missing the forest for the trees.
Firstly, Aristotle famously said that “man is by nature a political animal”. The premise here is based upon virtue and well-being. Although this statement is widely debated, yet it forms the hallmark of what politics is (in its true sense) and what it purports to achieve. Well, basically it thrives to formulate a city-state for achieving outcomes of virtue and well-being and on these features we can include economic growth, development, social peace and security, equal opportunities and so forth. So inherently, politics and political activity is not bad. In my earlier letter when I mentioned politics I meant this very inherent nature of politics and if this is what it aims to achieve then all that we do, starting from the kitchen to the office board room to the church and beyond is indeed, politics. Hence, there is nothing wrong with the activity called politics and it is in fact a means to a good end.
Secondly, it is well understood as to why people question a reverend in politics. The reasons are many and they are there for all to see and because of these we inherently perceive politics to be dirty. However, the real issue is who has made politics murky? The answer is we the people. From higher values of virtue and well-being we are more into cravings of absolute power and non-accountable authority and responsibility. Giants this backdrop, if a few good men (reverends and non-reverends alike) stand up to take the fight then we should be extremely happy. It is highly encouraging as based upon their character build-up we must expect some good to come through their involvement and activities. This argument takes us back to the question, whether religion and politics go together, I vehemently say, yes. The church must not castigate a leader if he/she wishes to enter the inherently meaningful activity called, politics.
Thirdly, the electorate of the state is a lot wiser than we think. A reverend or non-reverend does not matter much, rather, their competency matters. The electorate mainly decides on the basis of knowledge, skill and attributes of the candidate. Denominations do not matter. Hence, in my opinion there is no question of division amongst the masses. On the contrary, if there is anything at all, it will result in discussion. Discussions are good and even better if added with sprinklings of dissent here and there. By that logic, should the church vouch for any person? Certainly not, but it must not castigate a political aspirant either.
Lastly, on the matter of resignation, the only thing that the reverend needs to do is not draw any further remuneration from the church. As far as his designation is concerned (and based upon the above mentioned facts) the onus lies completely and solely only with the Synod to recall the ordination.
Yours, etc
Benjamin Lyngdoh
NEHU Campus
Shillong – 22
Unimaginative Tourism Dept
Editor,
On my way to Jowai recently I saw a huge building coming up near the Thadlaskein Lake. The building seems out of tune with the landscapes surrounding the lake. I later learnt that the building was constructed by the State Tourism Department to accommodate a Tourist Information Centre and a restaurant, the management of which will be outsourced. I also learnt that close by and just opposite to the lake there is an existing Tourist Lodge and restaurant of the Tourism Department which is presently outsourced to an enterprising entrepreneur from Jowai. The present owner brought the once badly managed Lodge run by the Tourism Department to a presentable and efficiently managed property and is doing pretty well by attracting visitors and clients from far and near. The owner also managed to pay a sizable rent to the Department. So why does the Tourism Department need to construct such a monstrous building close to an existing one which common sense will tell us is a duplication of the first. The second building will not only spoil the natural beauty of the place but will also spoil the business of the existing enterprise since Tourism is yet to take off to a point of competition.
A Tourism Information Centre does not require much space. At the most a single room or two rooms in the existing Tourist Lodge would have served the purpose. The one in New Delhi is located within the Meghalaya House itself. Instead of constructing such ugly buildings the Tourism Department would do well to set up green parks around the Lake along the lines of the Umiam lake and also add more recreational activities. This will enhance the natural beauty of the Lake and will also attract more visitors. Incidentally, I saw some newly constructed buildings of the Tourism Department at Mawlynnong village too. I wonder why such cemented structures are constructed in places which could do better with natural building materials. Besides it will destroy the business of the locals there who are presently doing well for themselves through setting up food stalls and by providing home-stay facilities. Here also the Department buildings are out of tune with the natural surroundings and the beautiful settings of the village. These buildings are presently left unattended and are already surrounded by bushes and tall grasses and are eyesores for visitors to the village. I have seen other unnecessary over-designed and poorly utilised buildings of the Department elsewhere. Overall, it reflects poorly on those running the Tourism Department. They lack professionalism and imaginative ideas. Rather it seems that the Department is run by an Engineer who is keener on constructions and spending money than pursuing the real objectives of the Department. The Tourism Minister had better wake up.
Kyrchan Dkhar,
Shillong -2