Editor,
Apropos the news item, “Government allots land for new Assembly “(ST Nov 22, 2014) it was reported that the government has allotted 80 acres of land for the State Assembly building. This is a huge acreage which will cost several crore rupees. Add to this the cost of the Assembly building (which last heard was to the tune of Rs 200 crore plus), and the cost of other infrastructure within the complex such as the basic amenities, furnishings and many other necessities and the inevitable escalation and one can well imagine how much the Government will ultimately end up spending for an Assembly building! Even if funds come from the Centre it still means public funds. Incidentally, in the same issue of the newspaper and ironically just next to the news item mentioned above, it was reported that the opposition decried the brief winter session of only six days duration, which is far too short. This is not the first time that the opposition has raised this issue. The Budget Session was not that long either and sessions which came in between are definitely shorter. In fact, in the last few years, the duration of each Assembly session has been so truncated that issues of public concern could not be taken up. But these short sessions should be a matter of concern for those in the Treasury benches also since they too represent the interests of their constituents. But then participation in such discussions is something unpalatable for the majority of our legislators. Perhaps it is stage fright or the sheer inability to articulate their ideas which make them tongue tied. In fact these short sessions are a blessing for them as it leaves very less time to expose their shortcomings. It could also be that they are complacent enough to believe that all is well in the State and so the question of raising their voices during such sessions does not arise.
In the previous Assembly many MLAs played truant during the sessions thereby prompting the Speaker to adjourn the sessions for lack of quorum. There are those who are unfortunately caught napping on camera. There is today a general feeling that these sessions are mere formalities as the outcomes from the deliberations are not visible. It therefore makes us wonder if we need at all to have a state of the art Assembly building for our legislators particularly going by the recent experiences in Meghalaya. At this rate it is also difficult to expect positive changes in the near future.
Undoubtedly having a grand edifice for the Assembly is a prestige for the State and its people but the nobility of the building and most importantly the values it exudes will depend very much on the fine standards set by those who occupy it. As of now, the majority of our legislators don’t display high standards of legislative behaviour and we cannot predict the quality of those who come later. The stakes are too high to make a gamble too! On the other hand Meghalaya and its people can gain prestige if we have peace and tranquillity, good roads , 24×7 power and water supply, sound universal health care for all, good educational institutions across the State, proper sanitation in all places , being self reliant in many aspects, besides a host of favourable expectations that we can name. For all these to fructify we need to be modest first. Perhaps one fine day when the State and its people are prosperous we can indulge ourselves in such luxuries.
Yours etc.,
K L Tariang,
Via email
Matriliny too must evolve
Editor,
Apropos the letter to the editor, “Matriliny: a tried and tested practice” (Nov 14, 2014) by Yshua Lyngdoh, I agree with the observation made by the writer about the non-consanguineous mating of male lions and elephants. To take consideration of this studied behaviour is accepted, for the patent fact that biologically, we, human beings are mammals too. The Divine design on the aspect of mating may be the same for us as well. It had been mentioned in the letter that once the male cubs attain a certain age, they are exiled in order to prevent mating with blood relations or simply put, their siblings. Simple questions which arise are: For how many generations do these lions/elephants restrict themselves from mating with their blood kins? Does this restriction apply only to maternal relations or paternal as well? Do these mammals restrict mating amongst matrilineal cousins (descendants of the same ancestress) for all times to come? More questions arise on the aspect of Marriage in the Khasi society: Should blood relation be traced only through female lineage? (We have a term ‘ksuit’, whose English translation is ‘pus’ (semen) for the group other than the ‘kur’ or clan). Why is it that only relations from the maternal side are considered taboo for all times to come? The writer seems to use this analogy of the mammals to establish the custom followed by the Khasi matrilineal society. In the Khasi society, marriage with paternal relations is generally restricted up to three generations only, where we have a term called ‘lah lait na khohsiew’ which literally translates to, ‘separated from our knees’ or ‘no close relationship’. Whereas, marriage within the same clan, even if separated for several generations altogether, with no knowledge of relations whatsoever (bym ia tip shuh), is prohibited for the simple reason of belonging to the same clan. It would have been logical for marriage from maternal lineage to be restricted to three generations only, if one gives equal weightage of chance variation to maternal as well as paternal lineage.
If the questions on the behaviour of the above mammals cannot be answered, then the analogy of matriliny being a better option than patriliny is not justified. Matriliny is just one more belief system and no society is free from hereditary health problems.
Yours etc.
Laiamon N. Nengnong,
B.A. IInd Year
St. Mary’s College, Shillong