Editor,
Apropos the article “Need for Societal Conversation,” by Patricia Mukhim (ST Aug 25,2017) and, “Khasi and Christian debate” by HH Mohrmen that appeared in ST last few days these articles are very important food for thoughts by rational and civilized society. Today, the urgent need is that e (ST Aug 28, 2017) each and everyone in society living in any locality in villages or in urban areas ought to apply common sense (which is not common) ,rationality, restraint and conscience in all things that we do, especially when we are confronted with occurrences in the locality or in the neighbourhood. Sudden outbursts or fanning communal passions will not take us anywhere.
A journalist friend and I had visited Madan Mylliem locality under Mylliem village after the cremation of the Seng Khasi elder of that locality. I do not see any problem at all in allowing cremation of the dead body at the Seng Khasi plot of land which is well within the locality. The place is quite big and there is already a utility building of the Seng. I do not see any danger of pollution to the village or the nearby stream because of the cremation. Nor should it pose any danger to the nearby houses or the private school. In fact, the garbage, toxic wastes and sand mining are more dangerous which are continuously polluting the drains and the rivers of the village. Though the village durbar had disallowed the Seng Khasi from cremating any more dead bodies in the plot of land, yet none of the male members of the locality came out to prevent the cremation, except some women and some school children who openly protested the cremation with slogans and placards. The cremation went off peacefully without any hindrance or untoward incidents. Now, the village durbar had good reasons to ask the Seng not to cremate dead bodies in the plot of land of the Seng Khasi in the heart of the village because an alternate large plot of land at Nongkhlaw hill was already allotted to the Seng for cremation. Of course the alternate plot is a bit distant from Madan Syiem. The Seng was hell bent in cremating the dead in the old plot as the deceased was a famous leader of the Seng in the village. That created more hurdles. The controversy arose because there was no diplomacy from both sides and no rational dialogue took place. And also there were no able intermediaries. Hence, the unnecessary controversy! It is not a fact that Christians of that locality ganged up to disallow the cremation because the deceased is from the Seng Khasi. Perhaps it was based on mere assumption and suspicion. That was misconstrued and misinterpreted and miscarried by some fringe elements to create communal differences and passions within the village and to carry a wrong message outside its confines. In fact there were no incidents or precedence earlier of hatred or conflicts between Christians and the Seng Khasi within Madan Syiem Mylliem or under Mylliem village. They lived peacefully, with mutual respect and co-operation in the affairs of the village. If some fringe elements and some political vested interests had a hand in it because the elections are round the corner, then it is a different matter. People from outside Mylliem should not meddle into this minor incident which can be resolved within the village, as the exercise has already begun and is being resolved with the intervention of the District authorities. No one should be allowed to take this further or else the law will jump on such people.
Yours etc.,
Philip Marwein,
Via email
Regiousity is the problem
Editor,
Your editorial, “National shame” (ST, August 28, 2017), raises a number of pertinent questions. Anarchy is bound to happen when political power bows to religion. And this has practically been staged in Haryana. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rightly said to Monohar Lal Khattar, the Chief Minister of Haryana, “The Chief Minister is also the Home Minister. Why have you allowed people to assemble for seven days? If they were antisocial elements, why were they allowed entry for seven days?” It is a pity that when the judiciary is trying really hard to drive religious prejudices like triple talaq out of the socio – political backyard, our political representatives are fighting shy of such responsibilities even though they themselves had promised to take up that job after getting elected.
We need to realize that there are two aspects to religion – spirituality and religionism. Sri Aurobindo had rejected religionism or sectarianism in religion lock, stock and barrel. He said, “On the other hand, religion when it identifies itself only with a creed, a cult, a Church, a system of ceremonial forms, may well become a retarding force and there may therefore arise a necessity for the human spirit to reject its control over the varied activities of life.” According to Mark 12 : 17, Jesus Christ said, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Here Caesar means government. This is a clear message for a secular government which is not connected with religionism. Had we followed this teaching, we could have avoided oceans of bloodshed and banished many Rasputins from enjoying political power.
History has indeed witnessed many Rasputins, big and small, coming out of an unholy alliance between religionism and politics. So, we need to be very cautious about religious dogmas hijacking our political rights as well as our evolutionary progress. The names of those who shared the public space with Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh even after his being charged with as grave a criminal offence as that of a rape, must be made public. The electorate should be in the know about such political Who’s Who to beware of them.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata