Editor,
I am writing to express my heartfelt appreciation for Jiwat Vaswani, whose remarkable efforts have transformed the Police Bazar area and beyond, making Shillong even more vibrant and beautiful. His initiative to beautify the surroundings with a variety of seasonal flowers has added a touch of charm and serenity to this bustling hub, delighting residents and visitors alike.
Equally commendable is his dedication to cleaning the rivers around Shillong, a crucial step toward preserving our city’s natural heritage.
As a local resident, I am truly inspired by Mr. Vaswani’s ability to balance his business endeavours with such impactful social causes. His example serves as a powerful reminder that one can contribute meaningfully to society while pursuing professional goals. He has motivated individuals like me to take small but consistent steps toward community welfare.
I hope The Shillong Times will highlight Mr. Vaswani’s contributions to inspire more citizens to follow in his footsteps. His work is a beacon of hope for a cleaner, greener, and more united Shillong.
Yours etc.,
Shekhar Singh,
Via email
Diplomatic blow for Pakistan
Editor
What seemed to have been a walk in the park for Asif Munir the so-called Field Marshal General of Pakistan by advocating a Nobel Peace Prize for the US President Donald Trump has now backfired. This entire proposal and diplomatic maneauver has blown up on Pakistan’s face. Some media sources have stated to point fingers at Pakistan for allowing the US to target a senior military General of the Iranian forces. This exposes the duplicity and hypocrisy of the Pakistani establishment which is playing games on both sides. This diplomatic meeting between the US and Pakistan shows how the Americans continue to use Pakistan as a rented state to further their interests while sidelining the civilian authority. Days before striking Iran it was ironic of the US President to have disagreed with his National intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard on Iran’s move to weaponise its uranium stockpile. It just goes to show the deep disagreement and rifts within the current US administration when it comes to addressing security issues in the Middle East. There is a fear that just as George W. Bush failed to provide evidence of WMDs in Iraq the same story seems to have created the current volatile situation in the Gulf region. Hope peace is restored soon unless destiny has its own definition in the complex world of geo-politics.
Yours etc..
Dominic Stadlin Wankhar,
Via email
Amit Shah’s comment on English language speakers starts new controversy
Editor,
A new controversy has started on the statement of Amit Shah on English language speakers. This issue is sensitive in India as the states had come into existence on the basis of language which is also evident from Maharashtra state where controversy is already going on the adoption of Hindi.
Speaking at the launch of a book by a former civil servant, the Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, predicted that the day is not far off when speakers of the English language in India would feel ashamed. Now the question arises why such a statement was even made. This, in fact, is a shameful statement from a leader of Mr Shah’s stature. It is reductive and reeks of prejudice and myopia – elements that knowledgeable politicians ought to shun. English’s centrality to the Indian context is undeniable.
Mr. Shah further said that, “our culture, our history, and our religion cannot be understood in foreign languages. With self-respect, we will run our country in our own languages and lead the world too.” Invoking the ‘Panch Pran’ (five pledges) envisioned by PM Modi for Amrit Kaal, Mr. Shah said it has now become the resolve of 130 crore people. During the Independence Day speech in 2022, when India was celebrating its 75 years of Independence, Mr. Modi spelled out five pledges — a resolve of a developed India; removing any trace of the colonial mindset; taking pride in our legacy; our strength in unity; and fulfilling the duties of citizens with honesty.
Earlier this month, Mr Shah launched the Bharatiya Bhasha Anubhag (BBA), or Indian Languages Section, to provide an organised platform for all Indian languages to move towards “freeing the administration from the influence of foreign languages.” Non-Hindi-speaking States, such as Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, have witnessed protests against the imposition of Hindi. The Tamil Nadu Government opposed the three-language formula in the National Educational Policy (NEP), claiming it was only to bring Hindi in the State “through the backdoor.“
In a country that speaks in many tongues and where linguistic tensions are quite common, English has served as the veritable lingua franca, bridging segments of the population. There is more. In this globalised world, English is the bridge that connects India to the world and its economy. The Indian economy cannot survive as an insular entity in an interconnected and competitive financial ecosystem. The fundamentals of the Indian engagement with international communication, business, trade and investment revolve around its proficiency in English. Certain critical industries in the country services and, in it, Information Technology – are especially reliant on this language.
What is true for the national economy is also true for its people: a hold on English opens up the frontiers of employment for the common Indian. Moreover, this language is also the shared global currency when it comes to India’s ties with the world of ideas and knowledge. India’s contribution to and gains from innovation, research and development, collaborations, discoveries in the global production of knowledge are inconceivable without English.
Mr Shah’s demonisation of English needs to be located within a broader ideological and epistemic thrust. It is also rooted in a problematic under-standing of what constitutes the idea of India. The minister sought to underline the importance of Indian languages by dismissing English: a foreign language, Mr Shah asserted, does not suffice when it comes to understanding India and its culture. But the spirit of the idea of India – linguistically or otherwise – advocates exactly the opposite. It is a celebration of pluralism and accommodation. English, with its many virtues and uses, thus has a firm place in the Indian ethos. Mr Shah needs to know that the flourishing of Indian languages is not contingent upon the marginalisation of English. Such a totalitarian attitude is consistent with the majoritarian impulses that are associated with Mr Shah and his party.
It is expected that the Government will look at all the pros and cons before implementing any policy that seeks to demonise English. Such sensitive issues could lead to serious consequences.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email