Editor,
I hope practicality and intelligent solutions will prevail rather than the current clamour for a law that will push us back a many decades. The ground practical reality is that a simple ILP is not the only solution to controlling illegal immigration. There are ways in which the problem can be addressed in lieu of implementation of this archaic law which if implemented will come with a lot of collateral that will adversely impact our growth and evolution as a society and the economic growth of the state.
We can if we wish handle the threats of illegal immigration in a scientific way. In today’s technology era, such solutions are a plenty. The MRSS Act was a policy in the right direction in the sense that long stay visitors could be mapped and a virtual database be recorded. Thereafter, since we already have the land transfer laws in place besides political reservation in 95% of our Assembly seats , the only regulation left is to monitor and curtail trade licenses and work permits ‘ transparently ‘and strictly .
Livelihood is the only reason why people migrate and if that is regulated, migration would also be regulated accordingly. But why deter the free movement of visitors who will help grow the economy and create the jobs and bring in the economic growth so badly needed by the people of the state? As it is, our state does not have robust internal revenue generation and in today’s system of national governance, a State Government can obtain central funds proportionate to the funds it can internally accrue. The days of the begging bowl are over. States will get what they deserve.
If the reality is spelt out to our people that the implementation of ILP could result in lesser jobs and economic opportunities for them and that the economy of the state could go into further decline following the ban on coal mining and transportation, I wonder whether as many people will support the Bill especially since there could be intelligent alternatives to address the concerns of illegal migrants besides ILP.
Also with regard to CAB/CAA, it has been mentioned by the CM earlier and others , that the applicants and people eligible for citizenship in Meghalaya under CAA are in single digits ( less than 10). This also may be addressed by pushing for exemption in the municipal areas i.e. the 3 % area left out.
Yours etc.,
Ming Sawyan,
Via email
Privileging the elite in Meghalaya
Editor,
I applaud Patricia Mukhim’s op-ed piece, “ILP a short-sighted, populist demand” (Dec 20, 2019). It is a timely and sober reminder in these troubled times, that narrow and selfish interests benefit nobody in the long run.
The BJP slogan of One Nation is a disguise for the marginalizing and eventual ostracism of all who do not subscribe to the majoritarian profile. If we are not clones of the prescribed citizen uniform, we will be relegated to second class citizens, humiliated and hounded. What documents will our poor people show tomorrow? So many tribals are already rendered landless by the rich. Even Aadhar is discouraged by many of us. Already in our country we are at the bottom of the caste system, on the lowest rung of socio-economic status and in our little corner of the country we have succumbed to the same mentality of privileging the majority.
The provisions of the Sixth Schedule have given us sufficient protection. Kong Patricia has shown us the data that the non-tribal population in Meghalaya is steadily decreasing. When it becomes zero then who shall we blame? Only ourselves! Unfortunately we have failed to take advantage of these special provisions to focus on our own social problems. We are unable to address maternal mortality, child malnutrition or school dropouts, all of which are amply shown in indices that are the lowest in the country. Surely the answer to these problems lies in our traditional social support systems or in the Christian precept of compassion that we so readily preach but hardly practice. Instead we plead with the Centre for money and to grant us political favours like ILP.
Tomorrow it can easily be taken away. Let us not be shortsighted. In the march of One Nation, be very sure that ILP can be taken away overnight. In a country where sovereign agreements like Instruments of Accession are given short shrift and the Assam Accord crumpled and thrown into a dustbin, ILP can be easily dispensed with, when the Centre decides is the right time.
By cutting ourselves off from the hinterland, what little recent development we have had, such as in tourism, will be dampened. Already our state is abjectly poor. Now we will become poorer.
Yours etc.,
Glenn C Kharkongor,
Via email
Analogue on BJP, Church & Christian Celebration
Editor,
After perusing, the letter to the editor, “Why blame only BJP and not Churches too” by P L Nonglait (ST Dec 20, 2019), few things come to my mind. Let me elucidate this below.
At the outset, those who read the BJP ideology and its antecedents will know that its agenda is Hindutva. Everyone knows where BJP stands, covertly and overtly. There are also glaring examples and instances in print and visual media that depicts its anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-minorities activities. The premise of P L Nonglait’s letter and argument, is that BJP should not be blamed for being anti-Christmas and other Christian celebrations, which is somewhat a fair view of trying to look at the issue objectively. But the author while elaborating his premises failed to be objective and missed the issue completely.
Firstly, the author seems to club together the differences between BJP and other churches; Church of Christ and Full Gospel Churches. Whereby, both the ‘New’ churches and BJP are together, against or for not observing the Christian celebrations: Christmas, Good Friday et al. This is a total misconstruction of opinion and invalid analogy. If people think otherwise, well, they are entitled to their opinion. But we should be wary, as John F. Kennedy once said‘ “Too often we… enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
Second, the conflict between the New Full Gospel Churches and Traditional Churches (religious/spiritual) are on the interpretation of the Bible and the Gospels; it is a theological conflict not an ideological one. The author must also note and find out that there are conflicts in the idea of Hinduism, every school of thought is different and lends itself to different interpretations. The BJP too is trying to infuse new interpretation of Hinduism which is a socio-political Hindutva ideology, can we say it is against Hinduism and its practices? BJP is in favour of Hindu Nationalism but not the basic humane tenets of Hinduism, the all-encompassing philosophy of respect for all creed and kinds.
There are affiliates of the RSS/Sangh Parivar who were in conflict with BJP policy. For example, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (Labour union) is against BJP’s industry friendly policy. Can we conclude that Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh is anti-BJP? No! Can we also say that all Hindus are for BJP, No! They are not. There is always a conflict of thoughts and ideas in any belief systems or political system.
Thirdly, we can also say that Politics/Political parties are using religion to gain their vote banks while churches are using ‘politics’ (in this context, politics as the art of influencing the masses) to gain followers for their brand of thought and church policy. But, we should also never miss the point that Political Parties and Churches are not the same but are totally different entities. Not even two sides of the same coin.
There is one point where I slightly agree with P L Nonglait, when he writes, “they (New Churches) became exclusive and have isolated themselves from other Christian churches.” This is true, but who are we to complain? We live in a democracy guided by the Constitution that allows freedom of thought, ideas and expression, as long as that idea, thought and expression does not physically and psychologically harm others or incite violence and anarchy. As far as these Churches defying Christian principles are concerned, the author must explain what are these Christian principles? All I know is that Christianity is an all-encompassing (despite some of its shortcomings) religion. But truly, Christians are followers of Jesus Christ and follow the teachings of Christ. Again who are we to judge, as the Bible said, “Judge not, for ye shall be judged” Mathew 7:1.
The main churches perhaps are following the above religious dictum, that’s why they didn’t judge. Mortals cannot fathom the immortal.
Yours etc.,
U D Tmar,
Shillong-6