By Albert Thyrniang
In the years around 1997-2000 when this writer was a student in Mawlai a couple of masked members of the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) used to pose for photographs with beneficiaries after distribution of utensils and tools in different localities in Mawlai. Those were the initial years of the now longest surviving insurgency in Meghalaya. The armed group also spread its ‘positive’ vibes by donating ambulances to different organisations in Khasi-Jaintia Hills. Some sections in the society saw the rebels as Robin Hoods. One of the founding leaders who gave shape to the movement ideologically, financially and structurally was Cheristerfield Thangkhiew. This top insurgent was killed by police at his residence in an alleged encounter on suspicion of being involved in the IED Khliehriat and Laitumkhrah blasts.
The ‘cold blooded murder’ of the surrendered/retired militant leader triggered a wave of sympathy, rage and sharp voices of anger and condemnation from pressure groups of all hues. His funeral, probably one of the biggest in the state in recent memory, turned Independence Day into a black day. Black flags and banners were hanged in different localities particularly in Mawlai, youngsters rode their vehicles and bikes bearing black flags to vent their feeling. Hundreds converged at the funeral. During the funeral service, while paying tributes to the deceased, speaker after speaker condemned the police, the chief minister and the home minister while demanding a judicial inquiry and resignation/sacking of the home minister, Lahkmen Rymbui.
The ‘pre planned’ operation soon developed into a law and order situation. Visuals and footages began to emerge of miscreants pelting stones at a police vehicle in Jaiaw, at a truck on the GS road. A very disturbing video was circulated of unidentified masked youths taking a black Scorpio for a joyride around the city brandishing weapons before setting it ablaze in Jaiaw area. Even as the departed was laid to rest incidents of vandalism and arson were seen threatening the peace and tranquillity in the state capital. By evening it became clear that law and order had collapsed and could deteriorate further and spread farther convincing the government to impose curfew in Shillong agglomeration and suspend internet service in four districts. When curfew had already been clamped petrol bombs were hurled at the residence of the Chief Minister, Conrad Sangma at 3rd mile Upper Shillong. It was shocking to see Shillong resembling Afghanistan or the Middle East. By late evening, news trickled in that the under fire Home Minister, Lahkmen Rymbui had tendered his resignation due to the ‘gravity’ of the situation while proposing a judicial inquiry. Unfortunately the Home Minister’s tenure was marked by coal and coke illegalities and at least two mining tragedies.
Among the pubic representatives who publicly questioned the government action while iterating for a judicial inquiry were PT Sawkmie, Mawlai MLA, Himalaya Shangpliang Mawsynram legislator (Both INC), Adelbert Nongrum, North Shillong lawmaker (KHNAM) and Paul Lyngdoh, Mawkhar MDC (UDP). The outspoken KHNAM leader even termed the killing a ‘fake encounter’. Significantly Paul Lyngdoh advised his colleague, the Home Minister to put in his papers to save himself from the embarrassment of being removed by the Chief Minister. His views prevailed in the emergency meeting of the party’s top guns that followed leaving Rymbui with no option but to quit. In the meantime, sensing the public mood, the BJP condoled the death of the once dreaded militant leader.
The truth of the 13th tragedy is not known for now. For the family members and the general public at large it was a cold blooded murder. For the police it was a firing in ‘private defence’. For the supporters of the former militant it was a pre-planned pre-dawn operation. For the police it was a tactical move to prevent another ‘hit’ in the city. A lot of questions have flooded social media. Only a scaring implication is mentioned here. The police insist that its personnel shot at the chronic renal patient because he attempted to stab the armed men with a knife. If the police can’t arrest an incapacitated person armed with a knife in a room, how can they get hold of hardened goons with such weapons? How can they apprehend criminals armed with guns and other lethal weapons? Does it mean the police have to shoot and kill them? The professionalism of the police is under question. Their training level is under scrutiny! The implication is serious as killing can be justified just because someone is accused of possessing a knife or a gun. Anyone can be a victim of police actions. The police can also make up stories of being attacked to escape the process of law. There was no independent witness that Cheristerfield was in possession of a knife and the firearm let alone that he attacked the police given his frail physical condition.
Similar incidents have happened in the past and the public still don’t have the answers. The GNLA ‘Commander-in-Chief’, Sohan D Shira was gunned down alone though his associates also were probably present with him. Was it not possible to arrest the feared militant alive? The gang leader, Fullmoon Dkhar was also shot dead though others too escaped from prison along with him. As their nexus with politicians was alleged, were they eliminated to spare big wigs? Is the life of ordinary citizens threatened by the law keepers who turn law breakers? Criminals too have the right to life. Killing criminals in fake encounters is against human rights. Are human rights violated on orders of the higher ups to seal cans of worms? Does the Cheristerfield case have these elements? Was Cheristerfield silenced to shut down the HNLC‘s modus operandi? If so, at whose behest?
Opinions on intelligence failure have been echoed in the wake of the Khliehriat and Laitumkhrah blasts. One aspects of intelligence is also to anticipate the consequences if a certain action is taken. Clearly the police and the government did not anticipate the consequences in the event of ‘Bah Che’ being harmed. The police had anticipated that the operation could cause injury for they had carried a stretcher to the spot. But they did not foresee the aftermath in the event of the death of the ‘interlocutor’. They did not predict the chaos, unrest and lawlessness. The government could not sense that the already existing desperation of the youths due to the sentimental ILP and border issues could escalate at the slightest provocation. Now the ugly law and order has to be dealt with. Though with imposition of curfew and unjustified internet ban normalcy may return sooner or later but the bruises could remain for a long time. The black flag day could become an annual event.
The sensational killing of the long serving HNLC leader shocked the state. The unexpected demise might have hurt the sentiments of a lot of people, particularly the younger generation. We may blame the police and hold the government responsible. But the violence and unrest, the stone pelting and arsons, the attacks and assaults on the patrolling police, the hijack of vehicles and the wielding of seized arms are never justified. The trouble makers are anti-social elements and such acts of lawlessness have to be condemned. They cannot be condoned.
Late Cheristerfield is hailed a hero, a martyr and a legend because he was a founder General Secretary of the HNLC. Does it mean that we approve of the ideology and activities of the rebel group? Are we going to throw away the hard earned peace and go back to the violent days of fear psychosis of the late 90s and early years of 2000? Do we like to see extortions notes being served to the public? Do we agree with the chilling warning to journalists and press persons sometime back for complying with the High Court order? Do we bat for the HNLC? With due respects the contributions of the late leader did not match the massive mourning. He ‘returned’ to the mainstream. So did others. Some surrendered cadres received threats for coming over ground. Late Cheristerfield probably never faced any threats. Was it because he continued to maintain links with his former friends that were more than the ‘mediator’s role’? Had he not formed the HNLC his death would not have evoked such an enormous response even if he was killed by the police bullets.
As a founder ideologue he motivated many a youth to join the Organisation. They fought against the state and many died prematurely. What about them? Who is responsible for their deaths? Are they given the same honour? What about the parents and families who lost their beloved sons because they were made to believe in a ‘dilution’? What about the policemen who fell to the bullets just because individuals decided to rebel against the state? Whose fault is it that they had to die in battle fields? Are they not part of the ‘Jaitbynriew’ that they had to be enemies?
With the Meghalaya Human Right Commission (MHRC) taking suo moto action on the suspicious encounter and the government’s decision to order a judicial enquiry things will cool down but the ugly turn of events could have been avoided had the law been respected.
[email protected]