Editor,
Further to the news report carried in your paper on 7th May, 2015, I feel I should bring out additional points to make my stand clearer. Firstly, the Government, or anyone advocating for talks with the HNLC, or any other militant group, should decide whether the particular militant group fighting for the society or against the society, i.e. are they “freedom fighters” or “criminals. The yardsticks used to determine this should be clearly spelt out. If it has been decided that the militant group is fighting for social uplift then the Government should initiate talks with them to ascertain whether their demands are within the Constitution of the country, and also which of the demands can be met and which are unrealistic. If it is decided that their activities go against the interest of the people then they should be treated in the way all criminals are treated.
If the particular militant group is fighting for the welfare of society they should be given credibility and called for discussions as a group. If, however it is established beyond reasonable doubt that they are a group of criminals, then they should be treated as individual criminals and each of them has to be booked at as per the criminal charges against them personally. If it is decided that the group meant well but were misled then the members should be assisted with support that would enable them to make an honest living. If they are criminals they should not be eligible for any rehabilitation package, but must, instead, be tried according to the criminal laws of the land without any exception or mercy.
If, after close scrutiny, the Government decides that there should be a dialogue with them as a group, then an atmosphere conducive for talks should be created. If a ceasefire is required to create this conducive atmosphere then let that be just the first step. Time-bound milestones should be in place to take the negotiations to a logical conclusion. Ceasefire is not a solution but just the first step to a solution. If it is established that the group is operating like criminal gangs then the Government should make all out efforts to bring them to justice. The effort should continue until the group is disbanded and the members are all tried by the law of the land.
I disagree with the present policy of clubbing the wheat with the chaff and of constantly reacting to situations. The Government can, and should, be in the driving seat and should take proactive decisions. Civil society will support the government, as they had done in the early 2000s, if the government/administration leads the way. This was, and is my firm belief. Treating militancy as a means of earning political mileage will only allow these groups to get away with blue murder.
Yours etc.,
RG Lyngdoh
College of shams
Editor,
Apropos the letter to the editor in your esteemed daily, “College in a mess!” (ST April 2, 2015), I was not baffled by what I read because it appears to me that educational institutions around Laitumkhrah are going down the drain. Last month, another supposedly reputed college, located in Laitumkhrah, advertised a vacancy in the Department of Biochemistry. Holding a doctoral degree in life science and having post graduated in Biotechnology with NET, I applied for the post. To my dismay, my application was rejected on the spot. When I enquired further from the “babu” in-charge I was told that the vacancy was in Biochemistry and not Biotechnology and that all the degrees that I hold have to be in Biochemistry ONLY, hence my application was rejected. However, my suspicions were raised when it came to my notice that a faculty in the Department of Biotechnology is a person from the Biochemistry (ONLY) background. It makes me wonder if this is a blanket rule or is it mere favoritism towards this individual that has won the faculty in question the coveted spot in this world of unemployment!
Taking these as standards followed by colleges in Laitumkhrah, it does not take rocket science to tell us why these colleges are plummeting.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request