Editor
I am writing this letter to thank you for the article on Durka Sari (TST, Oct 14, 2024) — “Journey of a visually-impaired woman entrepreneur” — by H H Mohrmen. Indeed, her courage, and indomitable spirit are an inspiration to us all, especially in this modern age when we need therapy for everything. The differently-abled exist perhaps to teach us lessons in courage and forbearance. Really, they should be called “better-abled.” Durka herself exemplifies such compensatory abilities. I mean her extraordinary power of memory!
Yours etc.,
Deepa Majumdar,
Via email
Land a precious resource
Editor,
Apropos of the news report that the Government is initiating a move to create an industrial climate through the creation of ‘Land Banks,’ the initiative is a welcome step. As someone deeply involved at the grassroots level in community development one understands that this move will greatly support specific need-based investments unlike what we currently see. The concept of a Land Bank was earlier moved under the mentorship of Phrang Roy and Late Professor A.K. Nongkynrih of NEHU through the IFAD-MRDS project. This was meant to address and accommodate landless farming households. The Meghalaya Institute of Governance had also developed and devised the model framework of Land Banks across the state with the intention of supporting and assisting marginal farming communities at the Dorbar Raid and Dorbar Shnong under a systematic approach. However, this current objective to address sector-specific needs through collaborative investment has to be devised using a different model considering that the Autonomous District Councils have a say in matters of land and land ownership. I hope that the government authorities take a deeper look before moving ahead with the idea of land banks for industrialisation as this could have adverse long term impacts. It is here that the need for land reforms is imperative.
Yours etc.,
Dominic S Wankhar,
Via email
Double standards on quota
Editor,
Rahul Gandhi has recently said that his party will take the reservation beyond 50 per cent when they come to power. Following that, those who are against the reservation policy have criticised the idea. Interestingly, they will do a 180 degree turnaround and oppose it if a 50 percent cap is introduced to the state quota in Lok Sabha seats. This is nothing but blatant hypocrisy.
No one likes the idea of giving a Lok Sabha constituency ticket of his state to a candidate from outside the state. Everyone wants to fully utilise this state quota, which is based on the population of the state. There is not much objection when a person from a different district but from the same state, gets a Lok Sabha ticket. It is because the person in question belongs to the state, and therefore, is expected to safeguard the interests of the state, even though she or he is not a local candidate.
It is amusing that some people change their stances the moment the topic shifts from a state quota in the Parliament to a caste quota in government jobs. This is a double standard, whole hearted support for state representation and vehemently opposes representation of caste.
But what is necessary for elected politicians is equally important for selected bureaucrats. A government is incomplete without the two. Social justice will be mere talk if there is no equitable representation both in elected and selected personnel of the government. Some people find nothing wrong in 10 percent of a community capturing 90 percent of the selected part (bureaucracy) of the government. But they will strongly oppose the same when it happens in the elected part (MPs) of the government. They will not tolerate even the logic of merit when people from other states represent most of the Lok Sabha constituencies in their state.
Without a state quota for parliamentary seats, the Parliament will look like the Indian cricket team, where players from a few states get a chance to represent India. But it would be absolutely undemocratic if a state or a caste group remains unrepresented in the government.
Earlier, when Rahul Gandhi pledged, “Jitni abadi, utna haq” (Share in proportion to population) after the publication of “Bihar Caste-based Survey 2022”, he faced criticism from his own party member Abhishek Singhvi that it would culminate into majoritarianism.
One of the basic tenets of democracy demands the participation of every community in the formation of the government. It cannot be termed as majoritarianism. The idea of democracy revolves around honouring the majority and ensuring proportional representation so that no one should be left out.
The caste reservation system is being criticised by two groups of people. While one group wants to banish it lock, stock, and barrel, the other one favours changing it from caste to class reservation. The latter group suggests reservation in jobs should only be for economically backward people irrespective of their caste.
As per the India Human Development Survey (IHDS-2) in 2011-12, 27 per cent of the respondents across India said that they had been following the practice of untouchability. One in four Indians who practices untouchability, does not touch even an affluent Dalit. So, money cannot change the stigma associated with a tail-ender of caste hierarchy.
The caste reservation opposition lobby must admit that the existence of caste is as much a reality in India as the existence of their state. Moreover, caste reservation in every sphere is necessary to minimise the incidents of favouring candidates of one’s own caste during the selection process for admission, recruitment, and promotion under the guise of merit.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata