Editor,
It is alarming to see the number of cases of NGOs taking the law into their own hands. They have neither been authorised to work on behalf of the Government nor to work on behalf of the people. Yet we read in the newspapers of them unilaterally closing down establishments or turning away migrants. What is more alarming is that both the Government and the District Administration allows them to get away with it. My question is where do you draw the line? If minor acts of taking the law into their hands are allowed today, these NGOs can become the law tomorrow. This has happened in the past. Is the Government again going to abdicate its law keeping role to a ragtag outfit of vigilantes?
The NGOs themselves should also think of their own image and credibility before they take the law into their own hands. Close on the heels of these illegal acts will follow allegations of extortion, bullying and communalism. These allegations will easily overshadow the good deeds that may have been done by the particular NGO.
Therefore, I would appeal to the NGOs to work with the authorised Departments/Agencies rather than taking the law into their own hands. And I would also request the Government/District Administration concerned to put in place Standard Operating Procedures that would allow a NGO-Government partnership in these sensitive sectors.
Yours etc.,
RG Lyngdoh,
Former MLA,
Shillong- 3
Church and State don’t mix
Editor,
I read with interest, Ubahunlang Dkhar Tmar’s article “A Prayer that Agitates” (ST June 3, 2020) on the recent act by our learned legislator, A Nongrum offering a prayer on the floor of the house. And while reading the article, I realized that Mr Dkhar is indulging in word soup. He has beaten around the bush and written a long article just to state that Mr Nongrum’s act is harmless. The simple fact is that religion has no place in the workings of the legislature and Mr Nongrum brought religion into the House with his act, however noble and good his intentions might have been. I assume Mr Dkhar is a Christian as he has alluded to references from the Bible but I wonder if he would have held the same charitable view if a Muslim legislator knelt to offer namaaz or if a Hindu legislator sat down to do Puja reciting mantras from the Vedas. I wonder would he have then taken the trouble to pen an article to defend the act of non-Christian prayer? Would he then have said, “What is the harm of a simple namaaz or a short puja?”
Yes we don’t know the motive of the legislator. We can’t read minds. What we can do is establish certain norms for everyone to follow – a universal code as it were and that code has been established. It’s called separation of Church and State. If one does not like the word “Church” in that sentence, then perhaps we can say separation of religion and state.
Yours etc.,
John R.
Via email
Nepal getting too big for its boots
Editor,
The tiny Himalayan country of Nepal, sandwiched between the Asian giants-China and India, is now in a sulking mood and wants to dissociate with India from any agreement on the boundary issue. Nepal, a banana republic, has been spoon-fed sumptuously by India for long and it has turned hostile now to bite the hands that helped it lavishly. In the recent controversial boundary issue with India, Nepal Parliament’s House of Representatives on Saturday unanimously adopted the Constitution Amendment Bill on the new Nepalese map that shows Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh-territory in India’s Uttarakhand-as part of Nepal. This has infuriated India which says the artificial enlargement of claims is not based on historical facts or evidence and is not tenable.
The row between India and Nepal was triggered last month after Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated an 80 km-long high-altitude road from Dharchula to the Lipulekh Pass (both in Uttarakhand) that reduces the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage time. But Nepal’s publication of a new map showing Limpiyadhura-Kalapani-Lipulekh area within its territorial boundary has raised many eyebrows. The area in question, a 370-square kilometer strip located at the north-western corner of the country has been under Indian administration for a long time.But Nepal disapproves this and says claims it as its land which should be returned. Many feel that publication of the new map by Nepal is a strategy to force India to come to the negotiating table.
Historically speaking, modern Nepal’s boundary was defined by the Sugauli Treaty signed with the British East India Company in 1815. It said that the course of the Kali river, called the Mahakali downstream, marked Nepal’s western boundary, which is the subject of the current row. The Mahakali river has two tributaries – one starting at Lipulekh and the other at Limpiyadhura. Unfortunately, the treaty did not specify which of these two tributaries would be considered for the purpose of delineating the boundary. India says the Kali starts at Lipulekh and Nepal says Limpiyadhura is the river’s source making the dispute between the two more uncompromising.
It is distressing to learn that Nepal has started orienting itself more towards China these days. There is, however, a strong political climate over there for such orientation as Nepal is governed by Nepal Communist Party (NCP). So, it is quite natural that birds of a feather flock together. It may be good to remember that China had already modernized its regions along the Indo-China borders, and when India wanted to modernize its regions especially the road that leads to Kailash Mansarovar, all hell broke loose. Yes, China wants to cripple and weaken India by all means, but not through direct conflict, China does not want to lock horns with India. China knows well that Nepal is the way to India’s heart. If Nepal is won over to their side, China can fish in troubled waters. Anyway, since India has been controlling these areas with our soldiers, it must be firm on its stand. The only option Nepal has is to try and resolve the issue through quiet diplomacy.
Yours etc.,
TK Nandanan,
Via email