Unwarranted interference


It was rather surprising to read the letter titled, “Solution to the ongoing MCS case” (ST Feb 20, 2021) written by someone who did not wish to reveal his/her identity. This is regarding the issue surrounding the MCS recruitment matter. At the outset, this writer begins by stating that he/she does not seek to criticise any party involved in this mess. Funnily, by the time one reaches the concluding section of the letter, it ends up doing just that. The letter writer needs to be reminded that it was the Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya which on December 10, 2019 had stated in unequivocal terms that the petitioners have not made any prima facie case to convince the Court on their allegations. The current issues raised by the letter writer such as the non-communication of exam pattern and other challenges to the Preliminary Exam such as the computation of marks of both Paper I and Paper II of Preliminary Examination, has already been conclusively decided by said Division Bench and upheld by the Supreme Court of India on November 09, 2020. Therefore, who is the letter writer to open up these issues once again and question the constitutionality of the same? Furthermore, I am astonished that the letter writer should express strong opinions on the current matters under litigation and in directing what the High Court should and should not do on the recently filed appeal. The letter writer is trying to influence the decision of the Court with emotional appeals when the matter is clearly sub-judice. I would request them to please stay out of the matter under consideration and allow the Court to do its duty. Such suggestions and emotional appeals are unwarranted.

Yours etc.

Jeremiah S

Via email

In Memoriam


We continue to see the winds of change blowing from all directions and yet we aren’t able to harness the right velocity to propel a change in our state. This is what (Late) Prof. Aurelius Kyrham Nongkynrih vocally pointed out in one of his write-ups, “Ki Nongialam, Ka Politiks bad Jingkylla” literally translated as, “The Leaders, Politics and Change.” In one of the meetings I had with him at NEHU in 2019, on a program which I had envisaged to work upon – ‘Landless Farmers and Landlessness’, he stated that if a change in our farmers livelihoods was to come it should come from the inner hearts and minds of those who have allowed this to happen. Very true indeed! He was one of those who was astute and vocal yet humble and pragmatic in his approach to social issues. He was able to touch the hearts and minds of the literary world beyond our state and helped shape the way our community should be able to choose it’s path for the greater good. Interestingly he was also a pioneer in formulating the idea of creating Land Banks for our landless farming community, a voice of the voiceless. Truly he lived and gave his best to us all. Rest in Eternal Peace Bah Kyrham.

Yours etc…

Dominic Stadlin Wankhar

Shillong: 3

DSC, LDA recruitment


It is amusing that the District Selection Committee, East Khasi Hills, published in their website a notice stating that candidates can approach the Deputy Commissioner’s Office if one wishes to know the score of typing test held last year. What stopped them from showing the score of candidates during the typing test? The software used for the typing speed test can give the results the moment a person finishes the test. Why did it take one whole year for the Committee to show the score of the test? As there was opacity during the test it is doubtful that the score of a candidate is authentic if he or she requested for the same at the moment.

Yours etc.,

Kevin M Shangpliang

Via email

Need for clear Line of Control (LoC)


The  India-China    disengagement  is  reported  to  have  been  completed  in  Pangong Tso  area.    With  China,  the  entire  length  of  border  from  Ladakh  to  Arunachal  Pradesh   is  not  demarcated.   An  ambiguous  Line  of  Actual  Control(LAC)  works  as  the  actual  alignment.  This  has  caused  occasional  conflicts  between  the  armies  of  the  two  countries.

True,   disengagement   can   avert  an  immediate  confrontation.  On   the   other   hand, it cannot eliminate the possibility of a conflict in the future.  Hence,  a  perfect  solution   for  the  border  issue needs  to  be  worked  out.  The  present  disengagement  must  lead  to  permanent  settlement  by  delineating  and  demarcating  the  entire  border.

It  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  Arunachal  Pradesh  has  always  been  an  integral  part  of  India.  Aksai  Chin  has  been  under  the  control  of  China  for  a  long  time.  Chinese  national  highway  G219  that  connects  Xinjiang  and  Tibet  passes  through  Aksai  Chin.  The  claim  of  China  over  Arunachal  Pradesh  and  that  of  India  over  Aksai  Chin  are  rhetorically  matching.  However,  neither  country  is  in  a  position  to  realise  their  claims    in  the  near  future  by  using  military  power.  A practical  solution  lies  in border  settlement  through  negotiation.  Both  countries  need  to  recognise the  boundary  alignment  based  on  the  widely  accepted  watershed  principle.  China  must  accept  Arunachal  Pradesh  as  an  undisputed  part  of  India  and  the  McMahon  line as  the  border.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  would  be  a  difficult  task  to  reach  an  agreement  on  Ladakh  sector,  it  would  certainly  be  a  step  forward  to  reach  a  practical  solution.  The  solution  lies  in  a  negotiated  settlement  between  the  Chinese  1959  claim  and  the  claim  by  India.

Yours  etc.,

Venu G S,



Get real time updates directly on your device, subscribe now.

Comments are closed.