Editor,
I have read the observations of Glenn C Kharkongor’s “Christianity and Covid” (ST June 4, 2020) and Mr John R, “Church and State don’t mix” (ST June 15, 2020) on my article “A Prayer that Agitates” ST June 3, 2020). I gladly welcome their observations. In the article I had stated that I welcome any corrections/constructive criticisms, considering my inadequacies of opinion, thoughts and knowledge. The objective (which I haven’t stated) of the article was to try and provide a balanced, coherent and holistic aspect of the issue (both deductive and inductive), while at the same time not supporting, maligning any persons or institutions. Hailing from the disciplines of Anthropology and Geography encourages us learners to be objective and holistic in outlook and reasoning. As a college teacher too I tried to inculcate in my students the importance of cultivating an objective point of view. Maybe I have failed in providing that picture when I wrote the article, which I humbly accept. In the spirit of public discourse and exchange of ideas and thoughts, I am obliged to clarify and elucidate on the observations.
Referring to my article, Glenn C Kharkongor wrote, “The latter is heavy with Biblical verses and doctrinal injunctions”, “simplistic explanations of the overlap of religion and politics”. In my article I referred to only two verses from the Bible, I will not consider it “heavy” considering the heaviness of the issue ‘at hand’. Kharkongor also pointed out that “there are 93 verses in the Bible that advocates praying in private.” I haven’t included even one of them in my article. On the “simplistic explanations of overlap between religion and politics”, I have to say I haven’t explained anything, I just provided few examples. Considering the readers and the limitations of space, I tried to be simplistic in my writing for the sake of communication. If I have failed in that too I am obliged to correct my articulations. While writing my article, I also had in mind the concept of structure and agency from anthropology and therefore I also used the terms “environment of influence” and “bounded rationality” (primarily a concept in behavioural economics). I considered the conditions (prayers, crisis etc) that influence the outcome or the settings that might have an influence on any actions. Since I considered this issue under the spectrum of religion and politics, I tried to provide a brief general description through limited examples, about the relationship of religion and politics being a historical affair.
The nexus between politics (State) and religion brought mixed results both good and bad. I also mentioned that religion is a form of politics (considering the frictions of ideas, thoughts, and interpretations of holy books happening in the field of religion) There are power- structures in religion that operate on the basis of power relations and hierarchical functions. I agree with Kharkongor that it is pointless to speculate on the MLA’s motives and in my article I stated the same. I can say, this issue, has relevance (if not directly) with the existence or absence of God. There will be no ‘prayer’ if one does not believe in the existence of God. But to prove it from a scientific, theological or philosophical point of view will not give a complete answer; even ‘a complete library will not give us an answer’.
Regarding John R’s, observations on my article as ‘word soup’ all I can say is that a soup is an appetizer. An article or essay is always a soup of words. I accept his observation of me indulging in ‘word soup’ instead of ‘word salad’ (mixture of confused unintelligible random words). I considered my article intelligible enough to John R, but when I read his observations that I ‘beat around the bush’ just to accept Nongrum’s act as harmless, I was amazed at his deductions. Nowhere in my article have I mentioned Nongrum’s act as harmless or even supported his acts. Mr John must have guzzled my ‘word soup’ in a hurry, despite it being bushy. However John is entitled to his opinion. Maybe he has formulated an opinion on my article even before reading it. John assumed correctly, of me being a Christian, but my views on being a Christian are different. John’s curiosity on my stand that if a non-Christian legislator did the same thing, then would I defends his or her acts? I don’t know why he would boil down my article to a hypothetical question, despite it being a ‘word soup’. But I had considered this point while writing my article.
All I can say is that my stand on any issue will be objective, even if it is a shaky and flimsy ground. I accept to be considered wrong in judgement or opinion but never to be accused of what I haven’t said or written. To quote Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Yours etc.,
Ubahunlang Dkhar Tmar
Shillong-6
Iewduh needs urgent makeover
Editor,
Referring to the news about Iewduh reopening, it is high time that the Mylliem Syiemship consider the makeover of the market first and to bring it In line with the 21st century! It needs to be dismantled, redesigned to a modern market by incorporating the infrastructure needed to accommodate all the needs of the modern age. What must be incorporated are the safety measures not only for health purposes but also fire safety norms, emergency services, natural disasters, parking, entertainment for children and grown-ups alike. Iewduh can then become a beacon of light for the northeast, a better resource generation for the Hima and a place of attraction and pride for the people! This pandemic period has provided an opportunity for the change and by the time the pandemic is over, construction could have been completed. Iewduh was planned for the 19th century and never developed beyond that because we don’t envision the future.
I wish good sense will prevail with those claiming rights over Iewduh.
Yours etc.,
D Kitbok Ryntathiang,
Via email