Editor,
The dumping of waste at Marten has brought about a series of chain reactions with the Seng Samla Mawlai Pyllun (SSMP) being sternly vocal about the issue. The SSMP also has threatened to go on agitation and to close down the Marten if the mismanagement is not effectively tackled. We all know that Marten is the only waste dumping site in Shillong, a site where wastes from all parts of Shillong especially the urban areas are disposed of. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that people do go around dumping wastes at Umshyrpi river too but collection of waste done by the SMB is disposed of at Marten.
Marten is an area situated closely alongside residential areas and along the stretch of the highway from Shillong to Guwahati. There have been numerous complaints from residents around the area of the strong stench emanating from this site, a smell that can cause a series of illnesses if not checked properly. During summer times when the monsoon and rains hit the city, the wastes also flow down to the Umiam river. Time and again voices were echoing, requesting the Urban Affairs Department and the Minister concerned, Sniawbhalang Dhar to look into ways to effectively manage the disposal of waste at this site as it will pose a serious threat to the people and livelihoods around. But sadly, all these voices and laments were not given attention to.
Following the recent events of this mismanagement of waste disposal where the waste from Jowai is being dumped at Marten, it seems the Seng Samla Mawlai Pyllun were able to convince the Minister of Urban Affairs, Sniawbhalang Dhar to carry out an inspection of both the biomedical waste and solid waste management plants at Mawlai. The minister also stated that the government and the department concerned is going on in full swing to identify new landfill sites. I don’t really know how much of that is true and how much of it is a façade. It is however interesting to see how far this will go and how fruitful it will be.
Ironically, it makes me wonder why don’t concerned ministers take up necessary action when needed? It seems they almost every time require a wake-up call, like some kind of warning or sign of protest to make them get up from their chairs and take up requisite steps. Issues like the mismanagement of waste disposal at Marten are not something new as the debate has been going on for a really long time now. For the concerned authority/department, and the minister, this shouldn’t be a new subject for debate as I am sure they have been well aware of the situation and the scenario. Then why is it that it takes a series of agitations, pleas, and threats for something to be taken an action upon? Couldn’t the minister in charge,
Sniawbhalang not have carried out the inspection sooner before it became a serious issue that has caused so much of a stir to even lead to the closure of Marten if things are not set straight? Or is there something behind the statement of the minister concerned? Maybe it’s just a face-saving device. Or maybe something bigger – an act to get rewarded with something else, perhaps which could be just exactly what he is eyeing for.
Yours etc.,
Maitshaphrang Khongwir
Shillong –8
Disqualification for floor-crossing
Editor,
Floor crossing in Indian politics has become almost a daily affair. But the issue of disqualification of a member who is elected from one party and then switches over to another party has not been resolved as yet. The decision to disqualify an elected member of the opposition party when he crosses over to the ruling party immediately after election has to be taken by the Speaker of the Assembly. Speakers are generally elected from amongst ruling party MLAs as a tradition and by the majority strength held by the ruling party. The Indian political history has enough evidence that most of the Speakers who are supposed to be impartial and neutral, cannot afford to be disloyal to their party. Consequently, Speakers in practically all the states have been seen to flounder and dilly-dally on the issue of their decision for initiating action in cases of disqualification of an elected member of an opposition party who joined the ruling party soon after the elections.
Finally, the membership of such turncoats remains qualified by manipulating their sitting position and they even get prized-posts from the ruling party for obvious reasons of gaining political mileage. In order to establish their impartiality the Speaker truly needs to make the right decision and act within a definite time period to cancel the membership of a member, from any other political party, who intends to cross over to the ruling party after getting elected.
By their floor-crossing, power-crazy turncoat politicians are playing dirty games and this act of theirs indirectly supported by the Speaker, at the behest of the ruling dispensation, and is unfair and unethical. Ostensibly in the garb of loyalty to their party the Speakers in collaboration with the ruling party are flouting the enshrined Articles of the Constitution and the acts therein and bringing huge infamy not only to the framers of the Indian Constitution but also getting tarnished themselves by deviating from their neutral position as has been enshrined in the Constitution.
It is therefore necessary to list out more specifically the duties and responsibilities of the Speaker by suitable amendment of Article 178 of the Constitution through the joint efforts of the Ministry of Law & Law Commission of India with active involvement of the Election Commission of India. However to protect the right of a politician to change his/her party it may be necessary to fix a time period during which an MLA after winning an election from the banner of an opposition political party will not be allowed to cross-over to the ruling party. A six-month period after completion of the election process might be necessary so that if any elected member belonging to one party wants to leave his/her party and join another party before the 6 month period he/she will have to resign from the post of MLA and seek re-election. This needs to be made mandatory.
Moreover, after winning an election from a particular political party, the individual crossing the floor immediately constitutes a crass betrayal of the electorate who reposed their confidence on a candidate representing the political party of their choice and with their support. The validity of the election result of such a turncoat should be immediately rescinded and made null and void. Such individuals who cross floor and join the ruling party after winning elections shall have to seek re-election from the same constituency. The Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951 may also be amended for incorporation of necessary provisions as being suggested.
It would be imprudent to leave the decision of cancelling the membership of an elected member who migrates to the ruling party immediately after getting elected in the hands of the Speakers alone because of their habit of procrastinating while deciding on such an important issue in the context of the political history of our country.
In fact, there should be a law that once an elected member leaves his party immediately after election he has to resign from his post as member of the legislative assembly simultaneously without exception. Otherwise the democratic system of holding elections would lose its sanctity and would render the peoples’ mandate meaningless!
Yours etc.,
Samares Bandyopadhyay
Advocate, Kolkata High Court