By Aristotle Lyngdoh
In a particular management institute, in one discussion session a query arose as to whether conflict is good or bad. Upon careful deliberation and discussion, a conclusion evolved that conflict does occur in every area of life both political, social and others and even in the field of studies and knowledge. Since it is a collision between enlightened minds, conflict should therefore be a healthy interaction of sound minds. It should never turn into a quarrel or a fight for supremacy. A healthy debate and discussion in a positive manner paves the way for sorting out loopholes and to develop a better alternative beneficial for both parties. It is like an operation room in a hospital trying to solve the problem of a patient.
For a Democracy to survive and flourish, a healthy debate is indispensible especially by those aspiring to become leaders of the society or state because it is on the basis of such debates that people get the chance to evaluate the potential of the person who has projected himself to be a leader. On the other hand, the state of affairs in our society are such that even while electing representatives to different bodies, we are overwhelmed by confusion. This is very sad. In the absence of a healthy debate, other methods like the use of money and emotional incitement have dominated the game unjustifiably. If anybody feels elevated and fit for higher position, he or she should pass through this process of an open debate and not by shouting from Motphran or any public rally. Further, this process should not be a one- time event but a continuous, consistent system till a fine individual emerges and passes the entire debating test.
HS Shylla and Ardent Basaiawmoit have agreed to sit for an open debate on matters concerning Meghalaya’s development and politics. This is a good sign for democracy and our society as a whole for soon a time will come when people in our state will no longer depend on candidates who can feed them like slaves in their kitchens and bedrooms but every voter will vote after making an informed decision not bound by coercion or compulsion. Let us learn from the presidential debates and campaigns of the United States of America and other advanced nations of the world. I believe that all the learned persons in our little state should support this initiative if we really care for our state. I eagerly hope that those who attend the debate will not take sides with anyone. Nor should they come with ardent supporters to prematurely judge and condemn the opponent or to cheer the winner since this is a debate not a popularity contest. People shouting and booing will not lead to a healthy debate that builds societies but only to madness.
Those who come for the debate should listen and be informed about the real issues that confront our very existence and development and to logically evaluate things. The right to be an MLA or MDC is for everyone not only for political parties or their sister concerns, NGOs and pressure groups. My sincere request to Messrs HS Shylla and Ardent Basaiawmoit is that when they debate, they should not preach or canvass but explain coolly and calmly as they speak in the Assembly since both are experienced legislators. The tow gentleman should consider that they are debating issues inside the legislature without their supporters. However, if the supporters do come the two debaters should instruct them to behave well. That would be the mark of their maturity and they would be like warriors who are not afraid to face defeat.
The debaters should not think that by winning the debate they can make the society better or reach the level where the feeling of insecurity and being alienated can no longer affect any section of the community but would be a thing of the past.
There have been debates in the past here but they cannot really be called debates. They were more like monologic lectures and a show of strength. This had happened in one of the constituencies in Shillong during the last assembly election where the supporters of a particular candidate unduly dominated the show just to target the incumbent. It was indeed a great disappointment for the organizers and for those who attended to witness the debate. That should not be the case for any debate from now onwards. A fairly calm and decent debate was held once at Jaiaw under the initiative of the then KSU president Paul Lyngdoh but that too was purely from the KSU perspective where candidates were forced to respond and answer questions that favoured the KSU agenda and propaganda.
A healthy debate is not only about current issues propagated by a particular group. Anyone who has a genuine issue that concerns everyone can bring forth that issue to the platform for a debate and out of it a solution should emerge which will be for the good of the society. The burden to be the ‘saviour’ of the ‘Jaitbynriew’ is not on any person or organization but lies in the heart and mental alertness of the people. To my mind, ‘ieit jaitbynriew or ieit ri’ (to love one’s nation or tribe) is to enrich its culture, expand its knowledge base and venture into avenues of development and never to align with the idea of communalism that breeds dictatorial attitudes.
If we can nurture this system in our election process, perhaps our state will be the first in the country that shows the way on how to pull out the right person to sit in the governing body from amongst the crowd. Many good things can originate from a small state like ours, but do we have the guts and willingness to shun all bad habits and practices of the present corrupt electioneering process.
I sincerely look forward to seeing that debates of this nature start somewhere and serve as a turning point and a tool in every election campaign, thereby reducing the tactics of a coward who wants to gain power without any competence. But it is also up to the district administration to decide for such occasions considering their concern on law and order. The district administration should not be legalistic in this regard. Rather it should seize this opportunity to turn this exercise for a free and fair conduct of elections. It is high time that healthy debates should be strengthened by law or ordinance. The District administration should not dismiss the idea outright but can issue strict instructions and guidelines to the people who attend the event. Why not take this as a pilot initiative that can be replicated further if found successful?
The Administration has every tool under its disposal to prohibit any attempt at creating disturbances and clashes or to create incitement against a particular debater.
In conclusion let me reiterate that any issue confronting our state and society should not be seen from a single perspective of any particular organization or NGO. Instead a consensus should be arrived at based on thorough information and understanding and taking into consideration every individual’s views. Let every citizen get the chance to air their concerns effectively!