Editor,
The Meghalaya Public Communication Policy, 2024 has all the markings of a totalitarian state. The Policy claims that its central principle is that “Government serves as the primary source of information on its activities, decisions and policies, featuring the values of transparency, accessibility and accountability.” How cute that the State has awarded itself with the character certificate of being transparent, accessible and accountable? Well, what if we the people do not believe that the ones in power embody these values? What, then? I personally do not believe so and one of the reasons is that during the COVID crisis, every YouTuber and independent outlet were barred from spreading any negative information on the COVID vaccine, because it contradicted the State and the experts. The State deprived the people who refused the vaccine of livelihood until the High Court intervened. But in April of this year, AstraZeneca admitted in a UK Court that their vaccine Covishield can lead to conditions associated with blood clot formation, heart attacks and brain haemorrhages. Can the State be punished for being dead wrong? Where is the accountability here? None.
Point 5.13 speaks about effective crisis communication. But the issue is not about effective communication by the State. The issue is that the State can be wrong, even if it disseminates its information effectively. So, this is where independent thinkers and reporters come in. But this policy aims to make rules and policy for private outlets by forcing them to register under the DIPR and then to abide by the State’s broad and debatable criteria of public order, decency, morality or defamation.
The question is, who will define the criteria of public order, decency, morality and defamation? If the State itself defines these, then the State is accountable only to itself. Hence the reason why I say that this policy has the markings of a totalitarian state.
So, the real and practical principle of this policy is that only the State reserves the right to be wrong, and individuals and private outlets do not share that right. This itself has defeated the values that this policy claims to espouse, i.e. accountability and transparency. The reason why Article 19(1) (a) was enshrined in the Constitution is because we do not place the State above the Individual. The power resides in the people, not the State.
Yours etc.,
Kitdor H. Blah,
Shillong
Nepotism must end now!
Editor
The letter by Khlur Basan on the evils of nepotism (ST Sept 18, 2024) urging the people of Meghalaya not to allow family dynasties and nepotism to trample over the position of individuals who are deserving and qualified for the posts of Chairperson of SCPCR is timely. This principle should be applied not only for this particular post but in any field in order to get the best brains and effective results, be it education, health and sanitation, roads, etc. To compromise with quality and exchange deserving and qualified persons for those who are underqualified is not only ethically wrong but also harmful for the well-being of the population in general and the stakeholders in particular.
Come to think of it, this substitution of deserving by non-deserving candidates is not a new thing. It has been happening for decades now and has only got worse with every passing day. The Government that has been elected by the people and is meant to serve the people completely sidelines those who had voted for them and prioritises themselves before others. This should not have been allowed to happen and should have been nipped in the bud. As it was never checked this unprincipled act of those in power has only continued to the point of causing hazards to all.
Nepotism should be called out. We cannot allow this to continue and to pave a rickety and shaky future for our children. The young must see that merit matters and political connections cannot always win the day. We must start adopting these principles now and not procrastinate before it is too late.
Yours etc.,
Jenniefer Dkhar,
Via email
Why this incarceration?
Editor,
Umar Khalid has completed four years in jail without trial. He was arrested under the UAPA on September 14, 2020, in connection with the Delhi riots. Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot decline bail, even under the special anti-terror law UAPA, and other offences, once the accused satisfies his prima facie innocence.
But Umar Khalid and 11 others are still languishing in jail. On this, academic and activist Yogendra Yadav rightly observed, “These four years are a stain on our judicial system and India’s Constitution.” Khalid is accused of making two speeches that instigated protestors to block roads. A documentary, “Prisoner No. 626710 is Present”, on him has shown his controversial speech in Maharashtra in 2020 in its entirety.
It is reported that he urged the people in that speech to use Gandhian means to oppose the new citizenship laws, which sparked fears of disenfranchisement. If it is true, then it means that Mahatma Gandhi could have faced the UAPA had he still been alive.
Citing data from the National Crime Records Bureau, the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, in its draft report, pointed out that out of 8,371 persons arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) between 2015 and 2020, only 235 were convicted. The high rate of acquittal (97.2%) showed that prosecution under the UAPA did not have merit in the huge majority of cases.
We need to listen to Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen. He said, “We need at this time, when the nation is being divided, between Hindus and Muslims by forces of political opportunism, and our unity is being destroyed, a powerful voice.”
He recalled the time during the British regime and said, “Under British rule, Indians were often arrested and imprisoned without trial, and some were kept in prison for a long time….As a young man, I had hoped that as India became independent, this unjust system, in use in colonial India, would stop. This has not, alas, happened, and the unsupportable practice of arresting and keeping accused human beings in prison without trying them has continued in free and democratic India.”
On keeping Umar Khalid in jail without trial, Amartya Sen said, “Many of those who are thinking boldly and being brave politically are suffering at the hands of the government, without any trial for their so-called offence. They are often praised from outside the country. Like, we have heard forcefully from Professor (Noam) Chomsky. He has wanted honour for Umar Khalid, who is in jail without trial. But such honour is often rare in this country.”
It may be recalled that a section of electronic media started kangaroo courts on their prime time TV debate and labelled JNU research scholars Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid, and Anirban Bhattacharya as members of “tukde-tukde gang” when they had been charged with a sedition case of raising anti-India slogans in February, 2016. A new Hinglish terminology, “tukde-tukde gang” was coined and popularised to describe them. Those TV shows went against the rule of law by giving their verdict even before the start of the trial.
A kangaroo court judgement on a sub judice matter can lead to a disastrous consequence. Kanhaiya Kumar suffered physical assaults at the hands of some lawyers in a court premise. There was a gun attack on Umar Khalid outside the Constitution Club in the heart of our capital in 2018.
Investigative journalism is one thing, but under its guise, the practice of giving a verdict on a sub judice matter is another. The latter is totally unacceptable.
How long should Umar Khalid be in jail awaiting trial without bail?
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata