Editor,
The recent debate on indigenous faith and the Sixth Schedule has raised important questions which the article ‘Indigenous Faith and the Sixth Schedule’ tried to answer. I agree with the article’s conclusion which calls for special recognition of indigenous faiths, such as Niam Khasi/Tre, in order to provide them with proper protection. Religion is a choice and it should always remain so. But adherents of minority indigenous faiths in South Asia have suffered because of the onslaught of foreign non-indigenous faiths brought from outside the region like Hinduism from Central Asia and Christianity and Islam from South West Asia. This is pure majoritarianism which all faith practitioners engage in.
In the early days of Christian conversion among the Khasis, many were ostracised by their community, which is also an example of majoritarianism. But today, followers of Niam Khasi/Tre are being marginalised by the state controlled by adherents of Christianity, which is a fact. Therefore, the idea should be to stand for the weak, which is also provided in the Constitution. Therefore, indigenous faiths such as Niam Khasi/Tre, Songsarek, Sarna, and others should receive legal recognition as minority faiths and become eligible for support and protection. Otherwise foreign non-indigenous religions like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism will gobble them up, which has already happened. Then it will be an enormous loss for the community because both past and present are important for the society to move forward. And since the Indian Constitution has provisions for protection and support of minorities, minority faiths also deserve that protection.
Yours etc.,
Bhogtoram Mawroh,
Via email
Forest land not Forest Department
Editor,
Thank you for printing my letter “No to observatory hill” in The Shillong Times dated March 13, 2025. In my letter I had written, “the forest has reclaimed the motorable road.” By this I meant the road is now overgrown with vegetation and no longer looks like a road but has become part of the forest. The word ‘forest’ has inadvertently been interpreted as Forest Department. What I actually meant was forest land.
I apologise for the lack of clarity.
Yours etc.,
LMF Sohtun,
Shillong-4
Is NPP a Garo Party?
Editor,
I am indeed allergic to the words, “NPP is a Garo Party” as appeared in certain local newspapers and the latest in your paper (ST March 2, 2025) captioned “VPP’s rise sends alarm bell for rival parties” in which Paul Lyngdoh stoutly dismissing claims that the UDP’s alliance with the National People’s Party (NPP) ridiculously derided as a Garo Party has led to the Party’s electoral debacle.
In this context, how can it be perceived that NPP is a Garo Party when the party won considerable seats from Khasi and Jaintia Hills in the MLA and MDC elections? There are Cabinet Ministers and two Dy. Chief Ministers in the present dispensation from the NPP. Hence it proves beyond doubts that NPP is not a Garo Party.
Alternatively I have never come across any print or social media blaming and accusing that UDP, HSPDP and VPP etc. are Khasi-Jaintia Parties. This amply testifies to the wisdom of the Garo people who believe that deeds speak louder than words. If my memory is correct, I don’t remember that the UDP, HSPDP, or VPP ever got even a single MLA or MDC from Garo Hills, which are the “Khasi-Jaintia based parties.” Even if they dare to contest from Garo Hills, the result I think will be zero.
Comparatively, while Garos are behind the Khasi-Jaintia people in all respects, be it in education, population, and the size of the area, and most of all having more seats in the assembly (i.e. 36 while only 24 for Garo Hills), yet most of the time a heros from Garo Hills sits in the driver’s seat, controlling the journey or sailing the boat wherever its convenient thereby pleasing the passengers and serving the public at large, even enticing the opponent to embrace him to achieve what is demanded be it wealth or fame.
Yours etc,
Svetlana Wankhar
Shillong – 1
Stop the nepotism; bring in merit and equity
Editor,
It has come to our attention that specific orders, issued periodically by the State’s Finance Department concerning government servants already holding a particular position but allowed to officiate in a higher post, have not always been followed. It must be reminded that the Finance Department, in its Office Memorandum issued on December 1, 1998, outlined a uniform procedure for government employees who are permitted to hold a higher post.
The office memorandum underscored that a government employee would be permitted to hold dual charge only when he/she carries the identical scale of pay within the same cadre and offices, and for a period not exceeding six months. Moreover, the same order stated that the arrangement for dual charge for any post should be made based on the seniority, according to the gradation list, of all officers of the next lower rank stationed at the particular station, which is the headquarters for the vacant post.
At the same time, the Finance Department, in its subsequent order issued on July 31, 2018 (Office Memorandum No. FEG.2/2001/Pt-I/22), stated that those holding dual charge would be entitled to a Charge Allowance of 10 percent of their basic pay.
These orders are clear and straightforward. However, it has come to our attention that certain government servants have been allowed to deliberately flout these orders by their superiors. For example, there is a case involving a grade four government employee who has been allowed to officiate in a higher post and is drawing the salary of that higher post, which exceeds the salary of their original position, instead of drawing only the Charge Allowance. The appointment of this grade four employee to officiate in the higher post is also surrounded by controversy, as it has come to our knowledge that the seniority, as per the gradation list, was not considered.
This is just one example; there could be many others involved in such illegalities. We have heard of government employees being forced to approach the court to seek justice due to favouritism, where they have been deliberately sidelined despite government rules and orders to the contrary. The aggrieved government employees have no other recourse when the government or its departments disregard the rules and orders they themselves issued. These incidents speak volumes about the government’s partiality and its disregard for the rules.
The perception created by such glaring partiality is highly negative and creates an unhealthy atmosphere, besides setting the wrong standards. We hope that the concerned authorities will take note of such incidents, inquire within each department, and eliminate those who are undeserving, while appointing deserving individuals according to the rules and procedures.
The proverbial “blue-eyed boy,” syndrome seems to have infiltrated every department, even when merit is at stake. Recently, we heard Nongkrem legislator Ardent M. Basaïawmoit speak in the Meghalaya Assembly, where he mentioned a certain “blue-eyed” official of Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma. It is an open secret that politicians, bureaucrats, and senior government employees have their own personal preferences, even at the expense of merit. If we truly care about an egalitarian bureaucracy, we must eliminate such preferences and adhere to the laws and rules that were created by the bureaucrats themselves. Otherwise, the laws and rules will become obsolete and meaningless.
The departments must introspect and identify those individuals who have been allowed to violate the rules and orders. The undersigned would be happy to provide the names of such government employees for the departments’ review. It is the duty of the Finance Department to check such irregularities, and to live up to the expectations of the people and of government employees as the government itself claims to be “pro-people”.
Yours etc.,
Sanbor Wahlang,
Shillong – 3