Editor,
Meghalaya’s educational landscape, particularly within the People’s College Scheme, faces acute distress that requires immediate attention.The unjustified discrimination against Science and Commerce lecturers despite their equal, if not greater, contribution to education as compared to their counterparts in other disciplines is appalling. Under the People’s College Scheme, the aim was to enhance educational accessibility and quality across the state. The intention was noble: to bolster educational infrastructure and ensure all educators receive the support they need to deliver quality education. So far, there are 21 colleges under the People’s College Scheme which was first launched in 2020. However, recent reports and feedback from educators reveal a troubling disparity in the treatment of Science and Commerce lecturers leaving them feeling disillusioned and devalued as this initiative aided only a section in a multi-disciplinary education system.
Currently, the Government provides no financial aid in terms of salary to Science and Commerce lecturers under the People’s College Scheme and they are left to navigate a landscape of insufficient resources and lack of institutional support. In stark contrast, peers in the Arts stream, receive comprehensive financial backing from the government which reflects an unjust financial disparity. This discrepancy not only creates a financial strain on educational institutions but also undermines the recognition and support that Science and Commerce educators deserve. This systemic bias undermines the very principles of equitable and effective education. Despite these constraints, the achievements of Science and Commerce departments remain noteworthy. Students from these fields consistently produce excellent academic results, reflecting the dedication and effectiveness of their lecturers.
The Government’s discrimination and indifference prior to the implementation represent a significant oversight with far-reaching consequences. The lack of support and acknowledgment to the lecturers of the Science and Commerce streams raises questions on the commitment of the Government to the principles of parity, equal opportunity, and fairness, given that all educational streams are crucial and equally important for a well-rounded, balanced and comprehensive education especially with the current implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 and for preparing students for diverse career paths.
The future of Meghalaya’s educational system depends on a commitment to fairness and excellence. By rectifying these financial disparities, the government can foster a more robust and equitable educational environment that benefits all students and aligns with the objectives of the People’s College Scheme. Addressing this issue requires immediate and deliberate action from the government and educational authorities. Equitable resource distribution must be prioritized, ensuring that all departments, regardless of their focus, receive adequate financial support. Salaries for Science and Commerce lecturers should be funded by the government to reflect the importance and demands of their roles. This step would ensure that high standards of education are maintained across subjects through qualified educators that our students deserve. It is imperative that these issues be addressed promptly to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of our educational institutions and to honour the exceptional service rendered by our dedicated educators.
Yours etc.,
Dr C Thabah,
Via email
Judges cannot subscribe to any ideology
Editor,
Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar, currently presiding over as Additional District Judge of an FTC (Fast Track Court) in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh) in a recent judgement has made a controversial statement regarding religious conversion. In a rape case presided over by the said judge, he made some unparliamentary remarks. The sitting judge has used a language that no member of the judiciary should use. The known facts of the case are that the man, who was a Muslim misrepresented himself as a Hindu in order to marry a Hindu girl, which is a wrongful act and the accused should be punished accordingly. However this does not give him the right to accuse and generalise the whole population for the act of one person. Further, the said case does not mention any intention to convert which makes the statement even more bizarre. Judge Diwakar is not new to controversies; he has openly hailed Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath.
A Judge is not just a public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court but a beacon of hope for the general public. When people lose faith in their elected leaders they loom towards the judiciary for getting justice. The Judiciary ensures that the organs of the government do not overpower the public. People expect a judge and the judiciary to be independent from the other organs of the government. A judge is also someone who should hold an opinion that is not biased and should decide matters based on facts and law only. A judge must be very careful while making statements as one wrong statement can cause the people to lose their faith in the judiciary.
No person is free from bias. We all are biased towards something or someone, but a sitting Judge must understand his position, power and duty and refrain from flaunting his biases and political ideology.
Therefore, Judge Diwakar’s statement regarding “religious conversions” is not only controversial but reeks of bias and hatred. As a person of the judiciary, Judge Diwakar should reflect upon the hateful statement he has made.
Yours etc.,
Reakor Shisha Kharkrang,
Laitmynsaw,
Upper Shillong
Addressing the debate on cow slaughter
Editor,
I am writing in response to the ongoing debate surrounding the consumption of beef and the methods of animal slaughter in India. As a Muslim, it is important to clarify that consuming cow meat is permissible in our religion, and we follow the halal method of slaughter. This method is not only based on religious teachings but also aims to ensure that the animal suffers less by draining its blood completely, reducing health risks associated with blood-borne diseases.
Dr V K Modi, head of the Department of Meat Technology at the Central Food Technology Research Institute in Mysore, supports the idea that halal slaughter causes less trauma to the animal compared to the jhatka method which is widely used other than Muslims. Additionally, Dr Karuna Chaturvedi, consultant nutritionist at Apollo Hospitals in New Delhi, explains that halal is considered healthier as it removes toxins and results in softer, safer meat due to the complete drainage of blood.
While some communities hold the cow as sacred, India is a democratic country where we must respect each other’s beliefs. If a certain animal is considered sacred by one group, we should be mindful not to slaughter that animal near places of worship or sell it to those who venerate it. However, it is equally important to respect the rights of those who consume meat, allowing them to follow their own religious customs and practices within their own spaces. We must not impose one community’s beliefs on others.
I would also like to raise the question as to why only cows are singled out when other animals, like goats, also provide milk? There is no opposition to the slaughter of goats. Similarly, the Indian ox, considered sacred as Nandi, the bull of the Hindu god Shiva, holds cultural and religious significance but does not receive the same level of protection as cows. According to an article by the Denver Art Museum, the Indian ox, or zebu, has a significant place in Indian culture, yet it is not subject to the same restrictions. This inconsistency raises questions about the selective nature of these beliefs and their enforcement.
In my view, this entire uproar about considering a particular animal sacred is simply being used as a tool to cause communal differences. In Meghalaya, we live in harmony, celebrating and respecting all festivals and religious practices. We endorse our faith but do not force it on anyone, and I request the government and authorities to ensure that this harmonious state continues, without allowing any disruptions or imposition of one religious belief on another.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request,
Via email