Editor,
Secularism is enshrined in the Article 28 of the Indian Constitution and we highly appreciate the Khasi-Jaintia Church Leaders’ Forum (KJCLF) for acknowledging and reminding us about the existence of this principle in the Constitution. However, the manner in which the statement was made by the Forum in the media is highly questionable. The use of words like “ostentatious” , “garish” while also criticizing the Government for hosting festivals is totally irrelevant to the current issue (secularism). This statement clearly translates to a politically charged collusion on this matter. Meghalaya is and has always been a Christian dominated state and incorporating Christian traditions and ceremonies can be seen as a way to honour the majority Christian community of the state but at the same time respecting and honouring other religions and denominations present in the state as well. The new building of the Parliament of India which is the highest seat of government and legislative activity and also a Government property under the BJP was inaugurated with Hindu traditions so how is it a problem if Christian traditions are used to mark this particular occasion? We don’t see the KJCLF leaders talk about atrocities being committed on our Christian brothers all over India. In fact we are yet to see any statement made by the KJCLF on the incident at a Church in Mawlynnong in which some Hindu fanatic made a mockery of the Church, so the big question now is what is the motive behind this statement made by the Forum to de-emphasize this good gesture of the Government.
Yours etc.,
W. Tariang,
Via email
Rising climate crisis
Editor,
India is one of the signatories to COP 2029 and other subsequent global agreements to reduce carbon emissions. The theme of 2024 was, “Addressing Climate Issues and Challenges”, with a focus on soil conservation, land restoration and proper waste management. However, the primary responsibilities also lie with the state governments in being equal partners in addressing climate change and how to mitigate climate disasters from affecting our fragile eco-system. In our State forest cover has been reduced in a systematic way and is fuelled by various factors like housing, mining, quarrying and industrial requirements. The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) reported that Meghalaya lost 84.07 sq km of forest cover between 2021 and 2023. This has to set alarm bells ringing in the State Forest Department as well as in other partner organizations working in the field of environmental conservation and climate crisis. Reduced forest cover has led to reduction in catchment areas as well and leading to human-animal conflict where human settlements have encroached into animal habitats. The need of the hour is a comprehensive action plan to mitigate and address dwindling forest cover, enhancing more plantation in existing forests and protection of catchment areas through community collaboration.
Yours etc..
Dominic S. Wankhar,
Shillong: 3
Govt schemes are funded by taxpayers’ money, not privy purses
Editor,
If someone starts a business with a 60/40 partnership with another person, can the partner holding the 60 percent share name the company after him and ignore the 40 percent shareholder? Certainly not, because in that case, it would mean that the former is the sole owner of the company. Needless to say, in no way can the former appropriate 100 percent profit.
The Centre and the states fund various welfare schemes, like Gramin Awaas Yojana, Gram Sadak Yojana, Ujjwala Yojana, Midday Meal scheme etc., jointly on a 60:40 ratio except in the Northeast and the Himalayan states where the ratio is 90:10.
Of the many welfare schemes, the Centre has named or renamed as many as fifteen with a prefix of either ‘Pradhan Mantri’ or ‘Prime Minister.’ Naturally, non-BJP states are unhappy with these names. Advertisements in newspapers and billboards of such schemes are necessary to make the people aware of those welfare benefits. But the prefix in the name of the schemes misleads the voters to believe that the schemes are being fully funded by the Centre.
The monetary gains in a partnership company are distributed in accordance with the investment. Therefore, more or less the 60:40 ratio is maintained while distributing profits between two owners of such partnership enterprise. It is true that ruling parties do not get any direct monetary gains from welfare schemes. However, they certainly get electoral profits with a benefit transfer to electoral voting machines.
First of all, it is totally unacceptable to create any controversy over naming a welfare scheme. Why should welfare schemes be associated with a specific politician or a party as the objective of these schemes are to fulfil citizen’s basic rights? If a welfare scheme, like Gramin Awaas Yojana, has to carry a political prefix, then its name should be PM and CM Gramin Awaas Yojana or something to that effect.
Given that the Centre bears 60 percent of the expenditure, the prefix ‘PM’ can only precede ‘CM’ to give the beneficiaries a clear picture. The beneficiaries must not be misled into believing that the state has not spent any money on these schemes. It is inappropriate to milk entire electoral dividends out of these schemes ignoring the contributions by the states.
West Bengal, a non-BJP state, renamed some schemes with a valid argument that as the state has to pay more than 40 percent of the cost, there is no reason why the Centre should get all the credit. Bengal has not replaced the prefix ‘Prime Minister’ with ‘Chief Minister’ but with some neutral words. It is really bizarre that the Union government instead of admitting the logic, withheld funds for those schemes to Bengal by saying states should not change the names of schemes sponsored by the Centre.
Citizens are considered to be the stakeholders of the nation and are thus entitled to certain benefits in a modern welfare state. It is the duty of the state to ensure equitable distribution of resources. Therefore, welfare schemes for the people in a welfare state are regarded as the basic rights of citizens. Such schemes are considered as a charity in a monarchy. The idea behind naming and renaming welfare schemes beginning with ‘prime minister’ or ‘chief minister’, tagging those who are getting welfare benefits as ‘labharthi’, and what they are getting as ‘freebies’ and ‘rewdis’ is absolutely monarchical where the king gives alms to his subjects in his name as if from his own pocket.
Given that India is a welfare state as per the Indian Constitution, such a name game shows disregard for the people of our country and our Constitution.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata