Editor,
On the eve of Meghalaya Statehood Day, the government officially released the State Anthem. The anthem is typically sung in English, Khasi, and Garo. The state emerged as a full state on 21 January 1972 after a struggle for two decades. Earlier consequent to the adoption of the Constitution of India by the Constituent Assembly the area under Meghalaya was constituted into Autonomous District Councils namely United Khasi and Jaintia Hills and Garo Hills, as envisaged in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. The Hill Politics in North East India started with the establishment of the Jaintia Durbar in 1900. Later in 1923, the Khasi National Durbar was established. It is to be noted that the Hill State struggle involved the three major tribes- Khasis, Jantias, and Garos under one common political platform. Hence, excluding the Jaintia dialect in the State Anthem is an act of ‘discriminatory treatment’ of Jaintia Hills and its people.
Yours etc.,
Dr Omarlin Kyndiah,
Via email
Omission of Jaintia language in state anthem
Editor,
The recently released anthem of the State is distasteful for its blatant omission of the Jaintia language despite Jaintia being a recognized tribe in the state. While the video displayed visuals from Jaintia hills and its festivals, the lack of any lyrics in the Pnar language is disheartening. It is an undeniable fact that the Khasis and Jaintias (collectively called ‘Niaw-wasa’ in Pnar) are sibling tribes that share many things in common and I can never foresee a future where these tribes are not together. However, it must be respected that our ancestors were not used to being clubbed together with the Khasis despite being called the same which is why they fought for a separate District Council in the 60s.
The omission is a part of a trend by some in the Khasi hills that wish to undermine the identity of us Jaintias by clubbing us together with the Khasis. To add to this, one of the lyricists of the anthem is a huge opponent of the Jaintias obtaining a separate identity. I take this opportunity to condemn such individuals and especially the seven Jaintia MLAs who allowed this to happen. We take pride in our identity and it is sickening to see how the government allowed it to be undermined.
Yours etc.,
Heirtami Paswet,
Via email
Fresh recruitment needed into Meghalaya Agriculture Service
Editor,
Through your esteemed daily, we write to draw attention to a matter of great concern for the agriculture graduates of Meghalaya. It has come to our notice that the last advertisement for the Meghalaya Agriculture Service was released in 2019, and since then, five years have elapsed without any new recruitments. For the unversed, the Agricultural graduates have faced a prolonged court case, which has now concluded, followed by the disruptive impact of the pandemic and subsequent challenges with the Roster system. Internally, the Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare has not been able to prepare the Roster till date. Additionally, from the recent RTI, it has come to light that there are many vacant posts within the said Department.
This prolonged delay, coupled with the existence of vacant posts, is causing significant frustration and anxiety among the agriculture graduates who eagerly await the opportunity to contribute to the state’s agricultural sector. The absence of recent advertisements and the existence of numerous vacant positions highlight a critical need for immediate attention.
Understanding the complexities of the roster system, we urge the Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare to not only address internal issues promptly but also to expedite the process of releasing a new advertisement through the MPSC for the Meghalaya Agriculture Service.
We believe that a swift and transparent recruitment process, coupled with efforts to fill existing vacancies, will not only benefit the aspiring candidates but will also contribute to the welfare of Meghalaya’s agricultural community as a whole. The agricultural sector plays a pivotal role in our state’s economy, and ensuring a well-qualified and motivated workforce is essential for its sustainable growth.
We trust that the Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare will take prompt action to address this matter and keep the interests of aggrieved Agriculture graduates in mind (They have suffered and are still suffering).
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
Via email
Can 144 CrPC supersede Article 19 of Constitution?
Editor,
The recent confrontation between the members of the VPP and the enforcement authorities of the Government brings into question the rule of law and the supremacy of Constitutional rights of citizens fighting for justice and redressal in a non-violent way. What is the Supreme Court Judgement on Section 144 CrPC? The Supreme court in one judgement said that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used to impose restrictions on citizens’ fundamental right to assemble peacefully; cannot be invoked as a ‘tool’ to ‘prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights’. The first observation on Section 144 CrPC was made in 1970, when a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that mere disobedience of the law is not enough, and there must be obstruction, annoyance, danger to human life, health or safety or riot or an affray for passing an order under Section 144. Hence the question is whether there was any imminent danger to human life or any other underlying factors for the Home Department and the DC to impose Section 144 CrPC? Article 19 of the Constitution is supreme and speaks of a citizen’s right to protest and assemble peacefully without violence and without disturbing law and order, as in this case it was a permission sought to meet the DC and to sit-in protest against the unjustified, irresponsible and arrogant abrupt termination of retired Lokayukta members by this coalition government.
To deny a citizen the right to protest is a contempt of the Constitution and a violation of human rights. Perhaps the state authorities should learn to read Constitutional laws and rules in a judicious manner lest they become an embarrassment of their own decisions if contested in the Court of Law.
Yours etc..
Dominic S. Wankhar,
Via email