Editor,
It is astonishing to see that on Wednesday morning, (19th August, 2020), the areas of Police Bazar, Motphran, Stand Jeep and Garikhana came to a grinding halt following the announcement of the orders by the District Administration, East Khasi Hills. The reasons cited for the instant closure of activities in the aforementioned areas was that the protocols of physical distancing, wearing of masks and hand hygiene were flouted and which violated the prohibitory orders made by the DC’s office.
Given these protocol violations, which could pose a major threat for the health of all, the district administration saw it fit to close all shops and activities in these areas. I, however, see the imposition of the orders (No. DDMA.EKH/119/2020 /VOL-I/152&153) as knee-jerk reactions. These orders, dated August 18, 2020 came as a surprise for the shopkeepers in these areas on the morning of August 19, 2020. Among the shopkeepers in these areas, the ones most hard hit were restaurants, jadoh stalls, bakeries, butchers, and other sellers of perishable goods, as they have prepared their stock of sale for the day, but things turned the other way round, leaving these sellers miserable and in a state of confusion, as to how or who they will sell their products to. My question is, if the orders were dated on the August 18, why were they released only on the morning of August 19? What is the rationale behind this? The administration could have released the orders well in advance on the night of August 18, to alert the people of these areas so they know whether or not to prepare for their next day’s business. Will the Administration bear the day’s loss of these shopkeepers or will it remain mum ignoring the importance of people’s livelihoods amidst the raging pandemic? Such abrupt announcements are an infringement of the people’s right to livelihood and are not based on astute understanding of ground realities. The Administration needs to introspect on this matter so as to not inconvenience the business activities of the people in future.
Yours etc;
Mewan P. Pariat,
Shillong-2.
Falling off the tightrope
Editor,
The letter “Understanding Religion” by Jennifer Dkhar (ST Aug 20, 2020), provides a balanced and humanistic frame to an inflammatory topic. When she talks about ‘us’, it is a plea for acceptance without discrimination. She makes astute and credible observations, without any ‘putdown’ phrases. That’s the ultimate criteria for human discourse, that while one asserts his or her viewpoint, the general appeal is for the good of all.
The numerous articles and letters on religion that have appeared in this newspaper in the last few weeks have been largely evenhanded and constructive, and the elucidation of various viewpoints has been educational. In recent days, however, we have seen a more shrill and strident tone. I refer to the personal innuendo against one of your august contributors, Mr HH Mohrmen, whose erudite and informative articles over the years, have enlightened us about our own society.
In this vein, the letter “No country for atheists” (ST Aug 20, 2020) is particularly objectionable. The authors wear their religion like a badge on their sleeves, no prizes for guessing. It is true that religion, Christianity especially, has given the world many wonderful things, as is rightly pointed out in the letter, and it is true that atheists have not contributed much. But the shortcoming of such a debating position is that it cherry-picks facts of history to suit a particular line of reasoning.
Organised religion is also the source of history’s worst cruelties and mankind’s greatest failures. Religious wars, slavery, colonialism, and genocides, are traceable to religious fervor. In these horrors, Christianity leads the way. Every religion, in spite of their noble and compassionate precepts, have failed to secure a just, equitable, and safe existence for all. Atheists have not contributed much, because it is more a personal thing, and not an organized movement on the same scale as religion. Which is good, I think.
Phrases like ‘bait for fools’ and accusations like ‘terrorist organisation’ without incontrovertible evidence, are unacceptable in dispassionate discourse and even amount to insult and defamation. Good arguments can get contaminated by immoderate language.
Presenting only one side of the coin is distortion and dishonest. It leads to polarization and communalism. In a recent FB post, the editor of this paper has herself decried this trend on TV channels. Sane discussions on religion, ideology, even gender and patriarchy, are akin to walking on a tightrope. I am surprised that the Shillong Times has permitted intemperate statements to permeate its respected pages. Even while Rome is burning or the Titanic is sinking, human kindness and decency must prevail.
Yours etc.,
Glenn C. Kharkongor
Via email
Editor replies: This paper allows all shades of opinions to be debated out so that the truth prevails and blather is driven out
Essence of Hinduism
Editor,
I am provoked by Albert Thyrniang’s supposition that caste system among the Hindus is “religiously sanctioned”. Whatever the merits or demerits of the caste system in the country, it is not exclusive to Hinduism only. Discrimination on various grounds have manifested in all religions from time to time. But that’s a different story altogether. The purpose of this letter is to shed some light on the matter of casteism and Hinduism.
According to empirical evidence, a thousand years Before Christ (BC), the society (then other religions did not exist at least in India) was divided into four categories: The Brahmans, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas, and the Sudras. Each category was meant to represent God’s own body parts and symbolise various vocational callings. The Brahmins (God’s head) are those who are priests and teachers; the Khastriyas (symbolise God’s arms) were the warriors and rulers; Vaishyas (represents God’s thighs) they are farmers, traders and merchants; and the Sudras ( symbolise God’s feet) are the labour class. Therefore, the divisions were made based on an individual’s trait and aptitude. Obviously, God never made all human beings equal and they all have various personal aptitudes and inclinations. The bottom line is that they are all inclusive and symbolise different parts of the same God! And they were meant to work in tandem for the common good of all sections.
It is an admitted fact that for centuries the caste system was abused by the powerful and the tyrants. Out of these exploitations of the weak and the meek, emerged the fifth class—Dalits—who were scavengers by calling. Let me also inform Thyrniang that Hinduism is not (repeat not) a religion per se. It is a way of life. Even our Supreme Court has ruled so. Some 5000 years ago, some anonymous author(s) had scripted the Vedas laying down eternal ethos for humankind. Nowhere do the Vedas talk of Hindus, and certainly not of any other religious belief system. It was the mantra or philosophy for human salvation. Further, Hindu is not a religion but a “dharma”. The British equivalent for Dharma is “morality” and “virtue”.
For Thyrniang’s benefit, let me state that casteism is not rooted to Hindu scriptures. In Holy Gita, Lord Krishna who offers eternal wisdom for negotiating every situation in human lives, says: “a learned man will look upon all living beings as equal.” It’s a different matter, however, that the essence of Hindu Dharma has got lost in the multitude of religious rituals which have been acquired over the millennia. Unfortunately, these tend to pass off as Hinduism today.
Yours etc.,
B. Chattopadhyay,
Via email