Editor,
The recent PIL filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya makes one wonder if the petitioner has really acted in public interest. The city has witnessed in the last two months several incidents of trees being uprooted by winds and heavy rains, which caused a lot of damage and public inconvenience, like traffic jams and damaged cars and buildings. The tragic incident of August 12, 2017 where a tree was uprooted and killed two unfortunate passers-by and injuring others, coupled with the inclement weather prompted several citizens to rush to the authorities in the government to cut down trees which were precariously hanging over their residences or thoroughfares. The response of the authorities was to have the offending trees removed, much to the relief of the petitioners.
No sooner had the forest department begun removing these trees when the Hon’ble High Court stepped in on the basis of a PIL filed by one Kaustav Paul and stopped the much needed removal of dangerous trees. My questions to Paul is whether it was really in public interest that the PIL was filed? Who stands to gain from the damages and deaths caused by falling trees? Having brought about the stoppage of removal of dangerous trees, will he hold himself personally responsible for any untoward incident that may (God Forbid) occur subsequently? Can he guarantee that his actions will stop trees from falling?
The environment is a factor that he may take refuge behind, but he should also be aware that interventions by humans in changing the environment to suit humanity are also important. When a tiger turns man eater, it is eliminated. Similarly, other actions are taken in a host of different situations that warrant the deviation from normal practices. When trees turn from being carbon sinks, water retainers, and all it is that trees are supposed to do, generally being good for environment to becoming threats to human life and property, should they not be removed? Is an entire forest of trees worth the life of a loved one? These are the questions that linger in my mind and through this medium I hope to raise similar concerns in the minds of like-minded people.
Yours etc.,
Michael Syiemiong
Shillong -3
Pre-emptive action needed
Editor,
We have not yet recovered from the shock of the tragic event on August 13 where three innocent lives were lost due to the collapse of a tree from the Governor’s compound. Since then there have been cases of other trees falling onto the road endangering the lives of people. Months ago I had written about the need to cut down such dangerously leaning trees as a preventive measure but it seems that our government authorities are “post factum” implementers and so they wait till a tragedy happens. This is sheer irresponsibility and lack of respect for human safety. On my way down to Barapani, I witnessed a number of trees along the stretch of road from Mawiong to the Umiam Dam, which are leaning dangerously like Damocles’ swords. Most of those trees are showing signs of weakening at the roots and one day they will just fall onto some unfortunate travellers. I believe that every traveller who passes that way would feel dismayed at the possibility of such an accident. I would therefore appeal as a citizen, to the government authority (perhaps the Forest Department) to have those leaning trees cut down as a pre-emptive measure to avoid the further loss of innocent lives.
Yours etc.,
Barnes Mawrie,
Via email
Revival of compassionate ground appointment
Editor, ,
Apropos the letter by Desmond Lyngdoh on the above issue where he insults the state government employees of enjoying state government’s largesse, I find the allegations baseless and absurd. I would like to tell him first that government employees work hard for the uplift of their state and the people. In the meantime, if someone expires while discharging his/her duties, then it is also the duty of the government to look into the welfare of the family members of the deceased who died in harness by offering whatever job it has in the department. It is not relevant to offer the job held by the deceased but government can help the bereaved family by offering a job of the lowest post in the service for the family to survive. If a bereaved family is denied this privilege then it could be presumed that the government wants the services of the deceased only while he/she is alive. Hence the proposal of the 3rd Meghalaya Pay Commission for appointment on compassionate grounds is much awaited.
The issues pertaining to the grievances of Meghalaya State Government Employees are relevant. What we are getting now is obsolete, considering the rise in prices of essential commodities, high cost of renting accommodation and so on. We are therefore compelled to urge the government to look into our demands leniently.
So, whatever the 5th Meghalaya Pay Commission has recommended is to be implemented for greater interest of the employees. We shall continue to strive for our demands.
Yours etc.,
Waillingstone N.Marak
Organising Secretary, AMDMOA
Garo Hills Region
Tura