Editor,
Reading the news report; ‘ Opp moves censure motion against Ampareen, Deborah’ (ST Nov 25, 2014) and the CM’s reply to the question posed by reporters on the two Cabinet Ministers, I am compelled to agree with the CM’s opinion but at the same time I don’t decry the opposition stance. Conscious of the constitutional obligations and democratic parleys, let me here elucidate my views through word-play. This ‘should be seen’ (borrowing the CM’s key inference words) as my democratic right to critique thereby in a minute way sustaining healthy democracy (?). First I would like to reiterate by borrowing certain personal favourite lines from the news report above which runs like this:
“[In reply to a question on the two cabinet ministers, the Chief Minister told reporters, “I am not linking the resignation with the other aspect of the points referred to. The reason and concerns cited by her (Roshan Warjri) should be seen as a strong message that through her act, she is also condemning the people who are bent upon perpetrating crimes, and it should be taken in a much more positive perspective”.]”
Based on the above report, I would like to diligently deal with the CM’s reply sentence-wise (the ones that struck me most)
1) “I am not linking the resignation….. points referred to” – Here, my assumption is, the CM by hook or by crook is trying to delink Roshan Warjri’s resignation from the other two Ministers. Out of the blue, I also see no link, unless we take into account the ‘moral responsibility’ ‘sanctity of the chair’ ‘social conscience’ which are outdated and impractical in this neo-governance, corporate-pleasing, electioneering, party politics and self-serving polity of ours.
2)”The reason and concerns cited by her (RoshanWarjri) should be seen as a strong message …through her act”- I like this Stalinist-like linguistic posture by the CM, especially the part “should be seen as a strong message…through her act”. Taking the CM’s statement into consideration, my delinking logic out here is as follows;
(a) Roshan Warjri’s act of resignation has the targets (perpetrators/underground) to send the message to; therefore her resignation is justified or fruitful.
(b)Ampareen Lyngdoh and Deborah Marak have no target(s) to send the message to. Since, as alleged by CBI, Court and as reported in the news both are in partially or fully guilty of wrongdoing; Ergo no link. Q.E.D.
3) Further as reported, according to the CM; “through the action of resignation, one is actually condemning the overall senseless killing and series of crimes committed by the anti-national elements”. Again my delinking logic with reference to CM’s statement above is as follows;
(a) Roshan Warjri’s resignation is also an act of ‘condemnation’ of the ‘senseless’ killing by anti-‘national elements’.
(b) Ampareen and Deborah’s alleged roles either by commission or omission was to my mind, the suppression of someone’s right to the job (teachers job scandal) or the democratic right to vote without fear of persecution in Deborah’s constituency.
(c) Again the victims (for lack of a better word) that suffered due to Ampareen’s and Deborah’s alleged role and actions were ‘sense-full’ (not senseless) normal citizens and their grievances are not anti-nationalistic.
Again, no plausible connections. I think we must all stop-asking or demanding the CM to drop the two cabinet ministers. There’s no link.
Your’s etc
U D Tmar,
Shillong-6
Some posers for Khasi linguists
Editor,
I recently i read two letters both titled ‘Useless Khasi Alphabet?’ – one written by S Lamin Khonglah and the other one by PK Lakiang. While expressing my respect to both the writers for the
innovative thought, I have my own thoughts regarding the Khasi alphabets and that thought always makes me feel uncomfortable as to why my clan name is ‘Pohchen’ and not ‘Pohshen’? Similarly, you’ll find thousands of words like ‘chnong’, ‘cha’, etc. which starts with ‘c’ and are being used by all the people of both East and West Jaintia Hills and some parts of Khasi hills as well as Ri Bhoi from time
immemorial. So if the letter ‘G’ was found to be avoidable’ (as stated by Lakiang), then why are we not giving importance to the letter ‘C’ which can never be avoided by the Hynniewtrep people? Hence, the suggestions of both the above mentioned writers to have a relook at the alphabets must be taken seriously by the concerned.
Yours etc.
Evan Pohchen,
North Garo Hills