Editor,
I had written a letter to your esteemed daily titled ‘Protect the Children’ which was published on 29th April, 2023, wherein I had advocated that we must respect the personal spaces and physical boundaries of children, precisely because we do not know the heart and intent of a man. I had stated that love and innocence cannot be a license to invade the space of another human being. I had written this in light of the recent controversy courted by the Dalai Lama in his interaction with a young boy. My contention is that even if the gesture was innocent and non-sexual, physical boundaries and spaces must be upheld because we do not know the heart of a man. I certainly do not hold the Dalai Lama as infallible, nor do I the Pope of Christianity, nor any man. So, we should be on the safe side of the children first, rather than any man. This should be the precedent in human behaviour, especially in light of worldwide abuse of children, by family members, by religious leaders, by organised paedophilic rings, by even local prostitution ring as we have witnessed in recent years.
However, Glenn C. Kharkongor, through his letter titled ‘Culture and children’ (ST May 3, 2023), has stated that he was aghast by the precedent that I proposed through my letter. He equated my views to a “kangaroo court or a patriarchal khap panchayat.” This is not an argument but an ad hominem attack against this writer. Well, the behaviour of the Dalai Lama was condemned in the court of public opinion, on the basis of collective morality and decency. But of course, collective morality and decency is beneath the wisdom of “the informed world,” to quote Kharkongor. And what is patriarchal about upholding the physical boundaries of children? The word ‘Patriarchy’ is often used in public debates to refer to a structure that allows men to dominate women. Now, I would like to ask Kharkongor, what does the debate about Patriarchy have to do with my letter? He is simply taking the word ‘Patriarchy’ and labelling it on to this writer, and applying all the modern negative connotations of the word on to this writer, which ends up being incoherent, if not dishonest. It is a logical fallacy. Protecting the personal space of children should be a universal principle of any healthy social structure, be it patriarchal or otherwise.
Cut to the chase, I will only conclude that Kharkongor does not see his own inconsistency. He is appealing to ‘culture’ and ‘the informed world’ which is an appeal to authority no doubt, but which is not an argument against the precedent of respecting the space of children. He is appealing to ‘Eastern and tribal cultures’ which are collectivists with the intention of juxtaposing them with ‘Christian and Westernized’ mindsets. But while he is doing so, he is in a sense, proposing an individualistic approach, in that if it is culture specific, then it is not wrong, even if it is against collective morality and decency. What can be more collectivist than protecting children cross-culturally? Shall we give each culture a certificate of approval, for its own sake? What is truly progressive and collectivist is to transcend culture, and protect the children cross-culturally.
Lastly, Kharkongor quoted the Biblical proverb, ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ and showed how it is no longer the norm in many Christian countries. If Christian countries can outlaw child beating, why can we not condemn any act which violates the physical boundaries of children, just because it is specific to Eastern culture or tribal culture. Or is anything Christian and Western automatically an uninformed and individualistic view, while anything Eastern or tribal is therefore to be accepted in the name of being culturally informed and in the name of collectivism? This is akin to reverse racism, but in a cultural sense. My proposition therefore is – let us protect the physical boundaries and personal spaces of all human beings, especially the children. Let this be the precedent in human behaviour, and let this precedent transcend culture, Eastern or Western, Christian or tribal. Let us, as humanity, be on the safe side of our children first. No man is infallible, nor any culture.
Yours etc.,
John Saitkhuid,
Shillong
Respect all sections of society
Editor,
Apropos of the letter by Caldwell Manners, “Dehumanizing language pertaining to the Hawkers’ situation in Shillong” (ST April 28, 2023), I am appalled to see that the writer has given importance to the language and choice of words used by the Federation of Shillong Hotels but completely overlooked the harassment and agony caused to the public by the unregulated capture of space by hawkers in the prime hubs of the city.
The current state of affairs is so abysmal that pedestrians are literally left with no footpaths or roads to walk on in the streets of Laitumkrah, Police Bazar, Motphran, etc. In some areas of the street people cannot even cross the road as hawkers have completely overtaken the same without even leaving a passage. If this is the plight of normally-abled citizens, it gives me goose-bumps to even imagine how differently-abled citizens like blind and lame people would be able to negotiate this traumatic state of affairs every single day in Shillong. After all, just like the hawkers, they too are our equally respectable citizens, and we must “make room for everyone in the city,” as Mr Caldwell rightly asserted.
Regarding the criticism towards the Federation of Hotels, it is an open secret that Tourism is now the mainstay of our economy and also the biggest contributor to job creation in our state. There are numerous small hotels, guest houses, and homestays being run all around the state, which give entrepreneurial benefits to thousands of households all around only because Meghalaya is blessed with phenomenal natural beauty. The least we can be responsible for is to keep our streets, roads, rivers, etc., clean and decongested to avoid making it a deterrent for tourists to come to our state. And while the Federation openly accepted that they are not against the hawkers in any manner, all they wanted was to appeal for a separate “Hawkers’ Market,” which makes it a win-win situation for all and helps the heart of the city regain its lost glory even as it is gasping for breath at the moment.
Interestingly, while some sections in the government, judiciary, lawyers and intellectuals advocate for the rights and livelihood of hawkers, there is absolutely no one talking about the misery of the shopkeepers who pay high rent, taxes, donations, take licenses, provide employment versus their self-imposed neighbours who are not only free from all such compliances but sometimes also reluctant to even spare a straight passage for the shops to let their customers walk in. The outer area of their shops is completely ransacked and held to ransom, but they compromise with the hawkers each and every day just to maintain a peaceful atmosphere to run their businesses. Hence, when we talk about respectful room for all sections of society, we should see the bigger picture, work in the larger interest of the common public, and not be paranoid about the interests of a particular section. On the basis of these points I urge upon the Government to swiftly implement the Central act on the said subject with reference to High Court order of 2022.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
Via email
