Editor,
In the recent weeks, the state especially the capital city Shillong has seen a lot of protest again the alleged fake encounter against the former General Secretary of the banned HNLC. While many comments have been made on the said police action. I however, would like to draw the attention of the readers to the statement made by Donbok Kharlyngdoh in the protest at Mawlai where the speaker had stated that if the Home Minister does not suspend the cops involved in the alleged fake encounter, the people of Mawlai have prepared a ‘Skirt’ for the Home Minister. What on earth does the speaker mean to convey by such sexist and misogynistic statement? As a Khasi woman I am appalled by such a statement. A simple understanding of this statement would convey that the speaker means to say that if the Home Minister does not dare to suspend the cops, he is weak and therefore they have prepared a skirt ready for him; which implies that the speaker thinks that skirt wearing people (women folk) are according to him weak (Kaei phi mut ban ong bah Donbok Kharlyngdoh, ba ki kynthei Khasi ki dei kiba tlot bor?). This, I feel is a despicable statement that should be condemned by all Khasi women. Is not this akin to a Taliban mentality where women are regarded as weaker and lesser people compared to their male counterparts? I wonder if he holds the same view towards his mother, wife, daughter, sisters, aunts etc.
Women in our society and elsewhere have to work hard to be where they are, to allow such people with such cowardly, misogynistic mentality to get away with making such abhorrent statements against women of our society and women in general . This should be condemned by one and all.
Yours etc
I.Rapsang
Shillong – 8
Oil palm will upset the environment
Editor,
The past 100 years have witnessed the major injuries being inflicted upon the most beautiful planet in the solar system. We have in fact senselessly punctured mother earth in pursuit of our selfish ambition. We only felt important to respond to our base impulses of greed. We never gave a second thought to the consequences of our ceaseless exploitation of the earth’s crust. Has the deep rat-hole mining not already disfigured many parts of Jaintia Hills resulting in a number of tragedies in the recent past? It calls for sincere soul-searching. Since prudence and greed are inversely proportional, we have totally lost our own sanity in the process. Are we — the so-called academically qualified people, not fully responsible for all the ecological mess and the change of climate now? We hardly can discriminate right from wrong. This present controversial plan of oil palm “monoculture” in the Northeast could be another recipe for disaster. It may go against the natural rhythm of biodiversity.
Let me draw an analogy for a layman’s understanding. What if we start eating “ghee only” as our principal food for a longer period of time? What will be its impact upon our bodies though it’s one of the very rich and nutritious milk products? It will certainly lead to various health complications, apart from indigestion. Even if we would be able to digest the ghee, the body will still be lacking many other minerals and vitamins leading to various malfunctions in our internal system. Nature requires us that we take varieties of “locally” produced vegetables, fruits, cereals as our balanced food for healthy living. Perhaps that is why bio-diversity is the fundamental characteristic in the “body of creation”. We have honeybees, we have butterflies but we also have pesky houseflies, cockroaches and mosquitos. If the honeybees are so useful then why are there less or not apparently useful insects, some are very poisonous? Yes, there are a lot many complex things around than that meet our eyes.
The widespread plantation of oil palm at a whim will surely invite various natural catastrophes as pointed by scholars such as Toki Blah, Patricia Mukhim and others. A NEHU research scholar Clarissa Giri deeply laments how the extensive monoculture might upset the ecological balance. I daresay, the infinite creation of God cannot be understood by our finite minds. However, we can heave a sigh of relief now that our Member of Parliament, Agatha Sangma has sent a letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister citing grave environmental fallout due to the extensive monoculture of palm oil in the Northeast. In one chorus all should lend support to Ms Sangma. Moreover, this oil palm is not endemic to Northeast India either as tea to Assam and Darjeeling. Unlike anything, it is going to adversely affect the terrestrial ecosystem, wildlife integrity and much more.
Here one strongly feels that we should not turn deaf ears to what has been warned by our learned environmentalists. Let’s listen to the siren of climate change with utmost seriousness. Our sincere efforts in adopting every possible measure to chill down the surging heat of global warming will be the “greatest gift to our kids”. We should learn to make peace with the ecosystem, not with the wallet.
Yours etc.,
Salil Gewali,
Shillong
Conflicting court verdicts
Editor,
The latest verdict of the Chhattisgarh High Court that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife is not rape even if it is by force or against her wish has sparked off an intense debate over the legality of marital rape. Section 375 of the IPC defines rape as, “non-consensual sexual intercourse with a woman”. However, in India the husband is exempted from any penal consequences if he forces intercourse on his wife without her consent.
Different views of High Courts in India on the legality of marital rape have often confused people. Recently, the Kerala High Court ruled that marital rape could be considered grounds for divorce. The Chhattisgarh High Court, on the other hand, does not presume that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife using force or against her will is not rape. In 2018, the Gujarat High Court observed that non-consensual intercourse by a husband was not rape. The Delhi High Court observed in the same year that marriage did not mean consent and that both men and women had the right to say “no.” People look to the Supreme Court for protecting the rights of women. Sadly, the Supreme Court failed miserably to do so. What the judiciary has done to protect women’s rights in relation to marital rape is raise the age of marriage to 18.
It is ironic that in India, where women’s rights and gender equality are burning issues in all domains, marital rape is not criminalised. It must be understood that the governments and the judiciary in the countries where marital rape is criminalised have more sensitivity towards women’s problems and their rights. Successive governments have shown no will or interest in women’s right to their bodies after marriage. Our law makers must understand that a marriage is not a licence for the husband to rape his wife. In fact, forced sexual intercourse by a husband is an offence just like any other physical violence by a man against his wife. Although the Constitution guarantees equality to all, Indian criminal law discriminates against women.
Yours etc.,
Venu GS,
Kollam