Editor,
If newspaper reports are to be believed that PHE supplied water is contaminated and acidic then people are consuming poison rather than safe water. While the KHNAM had highlighted the matter in the public domain the Government which is responsible for public welfare has a public responsibility to investigate the matter thoroughly. Unfortunately both are happy to engage in verbal duels. But let us treat these reports at face-value since the test results from Pasteur Institute (a Government institution), as reported in newspapers have confirmed that PHE water has low pH content and is therefore acidic. Why should we then expect any further explanation from a scam-packed PHE department? A clearer picture will emerge and help ascertain the reality if another round of tests are done. Ironically the Health Minister does not seem to believe in facts but speaks like a bureaucrat, rather forgetting that as a public servant he has to fulfil his obligation as a representative. Perhaps he should learn to empathise with the common man.
Yours etc…
Dominic S. Wankhar
Shillong -3
Desirability of an Appeal
Editor,
Sometimes the truth has to be said but it might not be to our liking. Reactions to the recent Division Bench ruling of the Meghalaya High Court on need for legislative measures to empower traditional bodies, is a case in point. There is a rising hysterical demand for an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court to strike down the HC ruling. But will the Supreme Court oblige? Wishful thinking needs to be replaced by cold hard facts of life. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will rule in favour of the appellant. Secondly, It could even uphold the order of the HC Division Bench and also add more stringent measures of its own. Thirdly, we would then have reached the end of the road as there would be no more space for further appeal. So is an appeal the only option we have. Is it the only way out?
The arguments for an appeal appear to be based the belief that we have the 6th Schedule to defend us, so the SC is bound to rule in our favour. Fact of the matter is the Constitution is a bye product of its own Preamble which clearly states that Justice- social, economic and political for ALL citizens is its prime objective and upholding the Fundamental Rights, Human Rights and Rights of a citizen are the core essence of the Constitution. The 6th Schedule in reality is just an appendage that seeks to install protective administration to tribal areas and the tribes therein. The 6th Schedule can therefore never override the Constitution. We therefore need to be clear as to what we are going to appeal against. We need to be certain that the outcome of any appeal should never be against our own interests.
The crux of the matter sprang from the single bench ruling of the Meghalaya HC as on 14th Dec 2014 that there needs be Legislation on the powers and functions of the Rangbah Shnong (RS). A very simple order requiring simple legislation on grassroot governance. Unfortunately we as a state, our leaders/representatives both political and traditional, messed up the issue. Instead of uniting and strategising on the best way forward, we allowed divisive politics and institutional squabbling (State vs ADC) to hijack the issue. Instead of steps to empower and modernise our Dorbars, we opted on politicising the issue. We squeezed it for the maximum publicity it could give. We neglected the urgent and dire need for introducing a good grassroot governance system. Instead retaining the status quo and avoiding inevitable change became the objective. So we went in for a division bench appeal. It bombed! Look where it has landed us and tragically the call today is for a repeat of the same folly all over again.
If the call is for preservation of tradition and simultaneous empowerment of our grassroots governance system, why should we put all our eggs in one appeal basket? Why can’t we have simultaneous alternate options? It might not be political sense but it is common sense. Our true needs can only be addressed by ourselves. Our real need is for a village governance system that (a) operates within the fundamental parameters of the Constitution. Anything else will be struck down by a court of law (b) A viable village governance system to serve the needs of today not of yesterday. (c) While so doing, to retain as far as possible the best flavour of our traditions. (d) As a state we need a uniform governance system by the state, for all citizens. Tradition will serve as the support base for such a system rather than the obstacle it is today. Based on the above the cry for an appeal to the Supreme Court needs a rethink. Question is, why can’t we simply come up with our own State Act? The ball is in the court of our MLAs. Do they have the guts to play ball?
Yours etc.,
Toki Blah,
Via email
Problem of religion
Editor,
In a very relevant letter, ‘Of Pseudo Liberals’ (ST, January12, 2016), Mr. Kajal Chatterjee has, rightly, said that ‘rabid orthodox pseudo-nationalists’ cannot project ‘humanitarian harmony-personified Swami Vivekananda’ as one of their icons. In fact, if we realise Swami Vivekananda’s teaching, we will find that his is diametrically opposite of any orthodox religion. Now, let us recall the incident when Swami
Vivekananda was in Kashmir in autumn of 1898.
He prayed to a poor Muslim boatman for allowing his four year old girl to be worshipped by Swamiji himself. The boatman was overwhelmed. He felt as if God was asking him through Swamiji and he readily agreed. Swami Vivekananda worshipped the girl as Goddess Uma ( Durga) on Mahasaptami day during Durga puja. Then he knelt down to touch the feet of a poor Kashmiri Muslim girl. With this singular act he defied divisions of religion, race, caste, creed, occupation, gender, generation and money to hoist the flag of universal human-hood. Actu- ally, Swami Vivekananda dida Sri Ramkrishna who himself practiced Islam, Christianity and other religions to
live his words- ‘many opinions, many paths’.
They hammered hard at the wall of religion because they wanted to make us realise the problem of religion. All religions carry with them inherent problems of confining themselves to mechanical rituals and thus obstructing the spiritual path of realising the One. Moreover, religion creates divisions and hatred among us. Sri Aurobindo in ‘Letters on Yoga’ said, “The religious lifemay be the first approach to the spiritual, but very often it is only a turning about in a round of rites, ceremonies and practices or set ideas and forms without any issue”.
The Mother said, “God gives Himself to His whole creation; no one religion holds the monopoly of His Grace”. Oceans of human blood could have been saved had we realised the limitation of religions. It is a pity that the juggernaut of religious prejudices
is still marching forward in this twenty first century. Thus, we need more and more discourses on the teachings of those great souls for taking us, in the words of Tagore, to ‘Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit’.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata