Editor,
Reading Erwin K Syiem Sutnga’s ‘Debate over Article 371 for Meghalaya: Lessons from Nagaland and Mizoram,’ my thoughts immediately went to the fact that Article 371 grants negative autonomy (protection from Central laws), as opposed to legislative autonomy. So, the fact that the state cannot legislate or grant license with respect to oil extraction does not lessen the main purpose of Article 371, which is negative autonomy. The issue raised by Mr. Erwin Sutnga, it seems, is that Article 371 does not grant the state of Nagaland autonomy over regulation and development of oil fields due to restriction under entry no. 53 of the Union List. However, while entry no. 53 of the Union List restricts oilfield development to the Centre, entry no. 23 of the State List allows states the power to regulate and develop mineral resources, subject to the limitations of the Union List.
So, while states cannot grant licenses for oil exploration, they can grant licenses for other mining activities not restricted by the Union List. The benefit and importance of Article 371 cannot be judged by isolated tension with regards to only one subject of the Union List, such as entry no. 53. Entry no. 54 of the Union List also gives the Centre power to regulate mining activities that the states have power to grant licenses under entry no. 23 of the State List. Thus, while the Government of Meghalaya can grant licenses for coal mining for example, it is restricted by such mining regulations imposed by the Centre as per entry no. 54 of the Union List. However, it seems to me that this is not the case in the state of Nagaland. In fact, Article 371A has been a roadblock in the regulation of rat hole mining in the state of Nagaland. But regardless of the legislative limitations of states with respect to the Union List, Article 371 is not deficient in its purpose to grant negative autonomy to the state, thus empowering the State’s Legislature in respect of other equally important subjects in the State List and Concurrent List.
Secondly, case laws can indeed serve as lessons. Case in point, when Parliament created Article 342A, the Judiciary interpreted it to mean that the Centre had taken away the power of states to recognize the Socially & Educationally Backward Classes. This prompted Parliament to reassert the power of states by inserting clause 3. Thus, judicial interpretations and case laws can help us define Article 371 more clearly in the context of our state and the kind of autonomy we envision.
Lastly, tension between the state and the Centre does not equate to tension between the state and the ADC’s, as Article 371 does not grant legislative powers.
Yours etc.,
Kitdor H. Blah,
Shillong
Delayed supply of textbooks takes a toll on schools and students
Editor,
Just like last year, parents are once again struggling to find MBOSE textbooks in the market. In fact, all MBOSE publishers should have made all prescribed textbooks available by the second week of January, marking the beginning of the new academic session for 2025. However, that has not happened.
Whether one believes it or not, some prescribed textbooks have yet to reach booksellers in Shillong and Tura. Titles from publishers such as Goyal Brothers, Amanta Publishing, and Cordova Publications either arrived late or in insufficient quantities, compelling parents to go from one shop to another on a wild goose chase for school books. The situation is further complicated by the fact that publishers in Delhi demand “full advance payment” before dispatching orders, a process that can take two to three weeks.
One bookseller sharing his frustration stated that he transferred an advance payment of approximately ₹1.05 lakh to Eupheus Learning on January 17, yet the books have not arrived. What frustrates booksellers the most is the lack of communication — whenever they call the Delhi office, there is no response. Instead, the company sends an SMS stating that the books are “under printing.” The booksellers are now left wondering if the books will even be dispatched soon or whether they will be despatched at all. And even if they are, booksellers know it will take another two weeks for them to reach Shillong. This is just one example. Imagine now the plight of other booksellers who have also made advance payments but have either received their books late or not at all.
The non-availability of school textbooks at the beginning of a new session causes tremendous hardship for parents, schools, and, most importantly, students. For urban parents, it’s an inconvenience. For those in rural areas, it’s an expensive game of luck! Their parents travel long distances to towns, hoping to buy textbooks, only to return empty-handed after spending significant amounts on transportation and other expenses. Indeed they spend on bus fare, taxi fare, snacks at the tea stall — money spent, books not found!
In light of these difficulties, MBOSE must take urgent measures to tackle this recurring issue. Textbooks should be readily available in the local markets, and no logistical hurdles should stand in the way of education. On behalf of parents, teachers, and booksellers, I urge the concerned authorities to hold publishers accountable if they fail to empathize with struggling parents. Yes, all publishers must give a solemn assurance that all MBOSE prescribed books reach the market before the second week of January.
But what needs more scrutiny is Meghalaya’s dependence on outside publishers for school text books. One can’t help but wonder when will Meghalaya and MBOSE finally stop relying on outside publishers for something as essential as schoolbooks? It is high time we explore ways to establish local publishing houses that are “competent” enough to compete with publishers from outside the state. After all, why should the education of Meghalaya’s students be held hostage by delays, excuses, and “under printing” messages from Delhi?
Yours etc.,
Salil Gewali,
Shillong