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.
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.
Dominic Stadlin Wankhar
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.
Kevin M Shangpliang
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.
Venu G S,