Editor,
Apropos the news report in The Shillong Times (ST Oct 12, 2017) about church leaders of Tura meeting the BJP leaders and gladly posing for photographs which was published in the front page, first of all, let me make it clear that I do not care which political party comes to power. I am not a supporter of any political party. Any government that delivers is fine. The church leaders of Tura(not all) meeting the political leaders and that too, when elections are round the corner, does not appear to be a good idea. The church is an NGO and the leaders are supposed to be apolitical. Religion should not be mixed with politics. There is no harm, rather it would be very good if church leaders meet the political parties/leaders for discussion on issues affecting the community/people and try to find solutions to problems for the good of the public. But the timing of the meeting is questionable. Why now? Why not later or even earlier? As is the normal practice, when elections are round the corner each political party will try to woo the public, including the church leaders. Can the church leaders disclose what is the agenda discussed in the said meeting?
Any member of the church or its leaders, are free to meet any political party or parties or political leader/s in his or her personal capacity any time he or she desires. However, meeting the political leaders at this juncture, when elections are near at hand, definitely raises eyebrows. To clear the air will the church leaders of Tura please make the deliberations of the meeting public? It would have been a good idea if the church leaders invite, like they do in Mizoram and elsewhere, all political parties to a common platform for a debate on issues affecting the people and to explain their election manifesto, etc. for resolving those issues and to put forward their action plans for the development of the state.
Yours etc.,
FR Marak,
Shillong- 14
Why contest from two constituencies?
Editor,
Rumours are doing the rounds in some vernacular media and on social media that our Chief Minister will contest from two constituencies in the upcoming assembly elections. If this is true, Dr Sangma will not be the first politician to do so and I’m pretty sure he will not be the last. Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Narendra Modi and the list goes on have done so in the past. The Representation of Peoples’ Act 1951 allows a candidate to contest from two constituencies simultaneously but the person has to vacate one seat should he win from both the seats, thereby triggering an unnecessary by-election. Hence this provision is illogical in the first place. Interestingly in most elections a prime ministerial or chief ministerial candidate would often this tactic for two reasons. First, as a safety measure. Second, as a political game plan. I reckon our Chief Minister will do it for the first reason if he really contests from two 0s0eats. In fact politicians and political parties simply misuse this provision though it serves no useful purpose. They thereby abuse the electoral system of this country. At the end of the day it benefits only politicians and political parties and not the general public but the whole exercise is at the expense of the public exchequer.
A friend jokingly remarked that Mukul Sangma should cough up from his pocket to conduct the by-election if the need arises. I jokingly replied that monetary penalty would not be a problem for the larger than life politicians of ours. After all, politicians are the blessed and the pampered lot of this country. Apart from monetary expenses, it is a total waste of time for the voters and the Election Commission, though for some voters it might be a bonus, a tamasha and parties and extra paid holiday. Though the Election Commission in 2004 proposed to amend this provision but the then UPA Government declined the proposal which is not surprising. Any reforms will have to be executed by the elected representatives but it is highly unlikely that they will act against their own interests. It is disheartening to see political heavyweights misusing this provision instead of being a statesman and following the principle of, “One man, One post, One constituency”.
Yours etc
Manuel Carey Lymba
Shillong -8
Bandhs, hartals & public inconvenience
Editor,
Finally Gauhati High Court has barred any kind of activity at the southern bank of Dighalipukhuri. The Court made it clear that a peaceful rally is different from a law and order situation. Are those protesters unmindful of public woes? The directive came on a PIL that complained of blocking of traffic and paralysing normal life. Also various students’ organisations, general public and trade unions are continuously holding strikes and dharnas during peak hours of the day. The bench issued notices to the Government to find an alternate place within a period of three months. As an interim measure, District Administration is asked to ensure ease of traffic in the wake of the present situation.
In a democracy citizens enjoy the right to protest or go on strike without disrupting public order. Workers’ Unions go on strike to negotiate better working conditions but they don’t bring life to a halt. Bandhs and hartals were powerful instruments of expressing popular discontent when Gandhi fought against colonial rule. Those protests were non-violent in nature. Nowadays bandhs lead to the shutting down of social and economic activities. It succeeds because people fear for their safety. Even essential services are not spared during bandhs. The methods used by protesters such as chakka-bandhs, gheraos and road/train blockades are destructive.
A bench comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar rejected the plea to declare ‘hartals’ unconstitutional in April 2017 whereas the High Court of Kerala in 1987 declared bandhs organized by political parties as unconstitutional. Ironically we have political parties calling hartals instead of bandhs while holding office. Be it a bandh or hartal, it means total paralysis of normal life and industrial activities. The state loses several unscheduled man days and there is loss to the public exchequer. A penalty was imposed on Shiv Sena and BJP for holding a bandh in Mumbai in 2004 to show dissent after a series of bomb blasts rocked the city. Should Election Commission derecognise political parties which indulge in unconstitutional forms of protest? It is time for the Supreme Court to take a hard look at such disruptive tactics in the name of democracy.
Yours etc
Kamal Baruah,
Guwahati