By Patricia Mukhim
This is the age of cyberspace. Everything happens in the virtual world. In the west even divorce proceedings are conducted online. Couples file their petition and responses over an online divorce service. I know of a friend living abroad whose daughter sought a divorce barely a year after marriage and it ended pronto. Her physical presence was required only minimally. In the UK there are several expert online divorce services hence there are considerably fewer overheads. The lawyers say they pass on the money saved thereby to their clients. We are therefore well wired to take on even the most arduous task just by sitting at home or anywhere else with our iPads or a smart phone. The internet is therefore a monumental achievement for humankind but like all technology it has its flip side. The cyberspace has lent itself to criminal activities from fraud financial transactions to threats and intimidations over email and social networking sites.
The recent threat from the Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) against some civil, judicial and police services personnel appeared as a Facebook post. The GNLA decree of inviting prospective assassins who would eliminate these targets was posted on the FB wall of Jaynie Sangma. The same lady was involved in a sensational case of torture and forced detainment of alleged sex workers in Garo Hills some months ago. So what does that make Jaynie Sangma? An activist of the Civil Society Women’s Organisation (CSWO) and a moral police who was last heard to have physically assaulted some sex workers? Or is she an over-ground sympathiser of the GNLA? Or is it the ANVC (B)? Confusing for most of us who believe that colluding with militants of any persuasion is a crime by association! Isn’t this a grand conspiracy? So what are the police doing?
While the GNLA threat sounds a bit over the top, the fact that the outfit has threatened to eliminate all informers the way they have gunned down Josbina Sangma needs to be taken seriously. On the one hand the GNLA writ appears like a desperate riposte to the state polices’ advertisement of putting prize money on the head of some of the leading militants. But on the other hand the outfit is known to make good its threats. It is therefore incumbent upon the police to get their act together and call the bluff of the GNLA, if indeed the post is a bluff. Using a fake Facebook account to spew venom and send hate mails around is a cyber crime. This latest one which threatens to kill so many people and invites sharp-shooters to do so at a price is certainly a very grievous crime. If the police are unable to track down the Facebooker who posted that threat on Jaynie Sangma’s wall then they will not be taken seriously. If State Police don’t have the wherewithal they should seek the assistance of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) which has a swish pool of cyber experts.
For too long we in Meghalaya have allowed rag-tag militant outfits to dictate to us over the internet what we should and should not write and how a release by them ought to be carried. Media houses and media persons have received threats for publishing news that show the militants in bad light. In October this year the Shillong public expressed their displeasure at the media for publishing a press release from Sainkupar Nongtraw of the HNLC (whose identity is a mystery) calling for a bandh right in the middle of Durga Puja. For the media this is a catch-22 situation. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If a bandh call is not publicised some clueless people or visitors from outside might land in the middle of it and pay a price. And if it is published the public feel that we are giving undue publicity to non-state, outlawed elements. In the absence of any directive from the State Police or the Government stating that publication of unsigned and unverified media releases from militants over the internet is an offence, the media has no alibi not to drop such news items although they cause public ire.
Let me now move to the other significant incident that happened this week. Ms Deborah Marak, MLA and minister in the Congress-led MUA Government is charge-sheeted by the East Garo Hills Police for having truck with the GNLA during the last assembly election. The other charge-sheet is against her accomplice Tennydard Marak who police have reason to believe is the person who published the pamphlets intimidating the supporters of Jonathan Sangma that they would get a bullet if they voted for him. These pamphlets were circulated during the election. Tennydard Marak’s antecedents are hazy. He is alleged to have videographed the 2005 shooting incident in Tura during the MBOSE agitation. This video was effectively used by political opponents of the present chief minister Mukul Sangma in election campaigns, to embarrass him since he was the State Home Minister at the time. The fact that Tennydard Marak and Deborah Marak, as claimed by the state police went from village to village to intimidate voters not to vote for Jonathan Sangma is cause enough for their arrest. May we ask why they are not yet arrested for questioning? Would the same immunity have been allowed to any other offender? It is also surprising how the Chief Electoral Officer of Meghalaya has made only evasive comments about the case at hand.
What is also intriguing is Tennydard Marak’s tenacious pursuance of the case against Dr Mukul Sangma’s scheduled tribe status. It is no easy task to file a case in the Supreme Court of India where lawyers charge a bomb for a single appearance. Where is the money to support this cause coming from? Is it coming from NGOs in Garo Hills? It would be interesting to find out the merits of this case. While one can appreciate a citizen for filing cases against corrupt legislators or officials, the present case against Mukul Sangma has a whiff of politics and a large dose of political vendetta in it. Someone in the Congress is definitely sharpening their knives and preparing to step into Mukul’s shoes should Tennydard Marak’s case go in his favour and against the present chief minister. And who benefits the most from such a situation? Clearly Tennydard Marak against whom the police appear to have sufficient evidence of pro-active support for Deborah Marak cannot claim that the charge-sheet against him is one of political vendetta. Anyone who has been actively involved in politics as early as February 2013 cannot be an innocent abroad.
This is one clear case of militant – politician nexus but it is certainly not the only case. There are many more politicians in this present legislature who have used one or the other outfit to win the last elections. Their rivals have been intimidated and bombs have been lobbed at their homes. Saleng Sangma and Jonathan Sangma are two known victims. There are others. But will the State Police have the same tenacity of purpose to get to the root of the matter or will they indulge in selective investigations? How independent is the State Police to go after the other politicians who have direct and indirect links with militants. If this nexus is not broken now, the next election will witness a bloodbath as militants seek to install their own puppets as MLAs and ministers to do their bidding. That will be the end of Meghalaya. The State Police should know that the public are their masters, not self-serving politicians. But does the Meghalaya Police have that moral compass?