SHILLONG: Even as the Ministry of Home Affairs is miffed with Meghalaya government for not lifting ban on unhindered entry of people, Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong has defended the stand saying that protection of local populace from COVID pandemic weighed supreme.
Without sounding too confrontationist, Tynsong said, “We are not defying the orders of the Home Ministry, but some regulations had become imperative to contain spread of the virus.”
Making it clear that the government respects the directions of the Ministry, Tynsong however said that “the state government is also responsible to ensure that the state is safe from COVID-19”.
The implications are that all the five major entry points of the state would remain closed for entry of persons from September 1 for a week and thereafter every month till November.
Tynsong said, “We are not closing down everything but we need to regulate things and regulations have to be in place in view of the spike in the number of positive cases in the state.”
It was not known how the Home Ministry would view the decision of the state after the announcement of Unlock 4.0 on August 29 by the MHA in which the Ministry reiterated again that “there shall be no restrictions on interstate and intrastate movement of persons and goods, besides withdrawal of e-permit system for entry in the state.
The deputy chief minister said that though entry points would be closed for a week but the government was going to allow movement of essential services and transportation of essential commodities. “It is not a total closure of entry points”, he insisted.
Tynsong also defended the decision of the government by reiterating that the health workers in these designated entry points are working 24X7 and they need to be given a break. The period would also be used for disinfecting the entry points.
Views of citizens
The Shillong Times tried to reach out to some of the citizens seeking to know their minds on the contentious issue. The respondents were forthright in their views which were varied and worth taking note of.
Rangbah Shnong, Laitumkhrah Gordon Bruce Sawkmie says, “I think that we have to start re-opening as per directions given by the Central Government. More stress should be placed on protocols like physical distancing and use of masks for prevention. The bigger problem is the local population is openly flouting these simple but effective preventive measures. And the night curfew is meaningless.”
Social activist Angela Rangad is of the view that since India has a federal system, states should have a say. “Anyway the centre seemed to have abdicated much responsibility at the very start of the pandemic itself as was witnessed from their handling of the migrant crisis. It’s a good thing that states are handling things on their own as per local contexts and assessments of the COVID situation in the state. As long as the processes are transparent and fair, states rightly should have a say,” Rangad said adding that the Centre that refuses to release the state’s rightful share of GST should not be dictating how states best manage to fight this pandemic.
Rangad further stated that the pandemic had in fact shown that more than the Centre it has been the local decentralized strategies that have been more effective.
Rangbah Shnong Jaiaw Shyiap, Lumpyllon PD Nongrum, said: “During this pandemic people will travel only when they have to. There are times when due to urgency, applying for e-passes is an unnecessary hurdle. However mass entry of migrant labourers to the state needs to be regulated.”
Chancellor, Martin Luther Christian University, Dr Glen Kharkongor has a different view. He says, “Closing the border for one week or a month does little to contain the spread of COVID. It’s a false sense of security. At some point we have to get life back to normal, balanced with reasonable precautions. Restricted movements only delay the inevitable spread. Paranoia about COVID is blinding us to the rise in unnecessary maternal and infant deaths.”
Retired diplomat, RV Warjri said, “I am very clear that the States know better about their own states and they should have the freedom to do what suits them. In fact, even within the state there can be variations between the districts. Interstate movement can be done as per understanding between states!”