Lad Rymbai, Meghalaya: A 27 year old labourer from Wapungskur village in Khliehriat, East Jaintia Hills district of Meghalaya says he is desperately seeking government compensation for injuries he suffered in an accident while working in an illegal coal mine in Lad Rymbai last May. He has not received any medical attention since then.
Siswilfor Dkhar received a grievous injury to the upper thigh of his right leg, which came under the impact of a loose boulder while working inside a 600 feet deep ‘box cut’ coal mine. Instead of rushing him to the nearest hospital, Dkhar said, he was left to his own devices.
Unable to afford medical costs, Dkhar spent four months undergoing treatment from a traditional healer in Mawphlang, a village in East Khasi Hills district. “They applied some ointment to my wounds but it still hasn’t healed,” he said, showing the deep, rotten gash on his thigh. He could only afford to be on painkillers for a month. “Ultimately, it was my traditional healer who told me that I could ask the sarkar (government) for financial help”
On 12 February this year, two police personnel from the Lad Rymbai Outpost paid him a visit at his brother’s place. “They came along with the owner of the coal mine where I had the accident and asked me why I was unnecessarily raising this issue when we can settle the matter here,” Dkhar told me. However, neither the owner nor the police offered any financial help, he added.
Thereafter, he was taken for a medical examination in the nearby primary health centre. On the same day, Dkhar went to the OP and his statement was recorded on camera.
Vivekanand Singh, the Superintendent of Police in East Jaintia hills in Khliehriat, told me that they had received information about Dkhar from a civilian about 10-15 days back. “Based on the complaint, I sent the officer in charge to the village to make an inquiry and later, the boy himself came to the thana along with relatives to give a statement, which was recorded on camera,” said Singh. He said that a suo moto complaint was filed by the police based on the ‘detailed report’ submitted to him by the Officer in Charge. At the time of writing this, I could not obtain a copy of the complaint.
Singh added that while the investigation is underway, the preliminary inquiry into the case revealed that Dkhar was not injured in a mining activity. “He was not a coal labourer and injured his leg long back in a car accident in which his parents also died. Since he could not afford treatment, the wound has flared up and I’m told, has become cancerous,” he said. The ‘claim made by the civilian’, he added, that Dkhar was injured in a mining accident was not found to be true, as ‘he himself said that he was injured in a car accident’.
However, Dkhar maintains that he spoke about the coal mining accident in the video statement recorded by the police. Moreover, he said that the previous accident occurred when he was 10 years old when a speeding truck in Khliehriat hit him. The scar from that accident below his knee, on his left leg, which he showed to me was visibly from an injury several years before.
Dkhar said the mine, which closed down in October, had been in operation since 2018, four years after the National Green Tribunal imposed the ban on all ‘scientific and illegal rat hole mining’ in Meghalaya. Since the accident, he hasn’t been able to go for work and barely gets around with a cane.
After his treatment, he moved into his brother’s home in Musniang, near Lad Rymbai town with his wife and two sons, aged three and one. “My wife has been supporting us but she only manages to make Rs. 300 per week from whatever labour work she can find in the vicinity,” said Dkhar, while he takes care of the children. “After the accident, I became a liability to my in laws’ family. So we had to move out”
On 31 August 2018, the NGT instituted a committee to deal with the issue of restoration of environment affected by coal mining and rehabilitation of victims, who were injured or died while working in the mines. The Supreme Court judgment lifted the NGT ban in July last year but allowed the NGT committee to carry on with their work uninterrupted.
SP Singh told me that wherever claims of injuries received from coal mining accidents were found to be true as verified by the police, those were submitted to the District Commissioner for disbursal under the ‘victim compensation scheme’.
In its sixth interim report submitted to the NGT on 3 December 2019, the committee recommended that the State of Meghalaya should disburse an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to each of the labourers who received serious injuries while working in an illegal rat hole coal mine. This was accepted by the NGT in an order on 9 January, along with other recommendations of the committee in its fourth, fifth and sixth interim reports.
When asked why it took him this long to seek compensation, Dkhar said that he had not even informed the sardar (coal mine manager) about the accident but someone else informed the police before.
“Three police personnel from Lad Rymbai outpost had come to my place in May last year,” he said. “But they told me that since I was working in an illegal mine, I could not claim any compensation”
First published in the print edition of Imphal Free Press
Saddened and angered by riots/pogroms in Delhi, some concerned citizens and organisations of Shillong gave a call for a All Faith vigil Against Majoritarian Hate on Friday, 28th February. Many responded. Speakers, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, prayed their pains and frustrations at the full blown Hindutva fascist times we were living through. But as Angela Rangad of TUR pointed out, that the same process of othering and targetting which underpinned the Hindutva fascist project also had its resonances in Meghalaya’s own backyard. To stand up against violence and hate in India should also mean standing up to such ideas in Meghalaya too. Other speakers, such as Rudy Warjri, Rev. Nathan Diengdoh & Rev. Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh appealed for a new coalition of citizens in Shillong and elsewhere who would defend pluralism and understanding amongst communities. But it was Caldwell Manners, a Khasi documentary photographer and peace activist who brought it all home. While the vigil was ending, news started filtering in about the conflict in Ichamati near Shella, Meghalaya between the non-tribal residents and the activists and supporters of Khasi Students Union, leading to the death of Lurshai Hynniewta, a Khasi, of Sohra. The curfew was imposed, mobile internet shut down, amidst the fears of violence and counter-violence. Next morning, Rupchand Dewan, a non tribal shop assistant in Iewduh, succumbed to a stabbing spree in the market, eight others were injured. Caldwell’s speech came back to haunt us. Curfew continues.
This gathering, this plurality of people, is a response to bigotry, hatred, violence, exclusion and fear. Thank you for taking a stand. Thank you for showing up. We are here to respond in love, in compassion, in dialog, and nonviolence.
The violence we witnessed in Delhi, the violence we witnessed in the country over these last few months are not isolated events that happened “spontaneously” like the government would like us to believe. These are events orchestrated by a cultural shift toward a politics of hate. When I say “Politics” I don’t necessarily mean electoral politics, even though that can be a part of it. By politics I mean the arrangement of power. The discourse of hate and suspicion backed by the brutality of violence, whicjy has instilled in us a sense of fear. A fear that teaches us to treat people who do not look like me, who do not talk like me, who not believe like me as a threat to my existence. It creates a “us and them” mentality, it creates a hierarchy of of power – and usually it’s a hierarchy that justifies violence, bullying, sterotyping and hate. We cannot allow these ingredients of hate, of exclusion, of supremacy, and of violence dictate how we should live.
We are here because we have had enough.
Enough of the violence. Enough of the racism. Enough religious bigotry. And enough of the exclusion of our neighbours.
I want to call on the Christian community, a majority in this state, to be bold and courageous in denouncing the violence, particularly in our own state.
Everyone has the right to be safe. If you’re from Shillong, if you’re from Assam, if you’re from another other part of India, even if you are from Bangladesh. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SAFE.
If you are Ñiam Tre, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jain, atheist, or agnostic, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SAFE.
If you are Gay, Lesbian, Transgender – no matter you sexual orientation or gender – YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SAFE.
If you are a child, a woman, a man, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SAFE.
This fear is not only about Delhi. This fear is about Shillong too.
Today we are here because of hope. Because an alternative of love, dialog, respect and nonviolence are possible.
Yes, we are different, we have different beliefs, ideas, and preferences. Yes, there is so much to identify on what divides us, its easier to do that. James Baldwin, writer and activist wrote, “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
And that is what the authors of the Politics of Hate want us to do. They are banking on the fact that we will keep each other at arms length. That we will be suspicious of one another. That we will look out for our good over the common good. That we will not know our neighbour.
Enough of that!!! We will not allow hatred and difference of divide us.
You might be here today with friends, or maybe alone. But I’m sure there’s someone here you do know. As an act of protest, take this moment to walk up to someone you don’t know, shake their hand, introduce yourself, and tell them, “WE ARE STRONGER THAN HATE!”
Caldwell C. Manners is a humanitarian practitioner who has worked with local grassroots activists and human rights defenders in Colombia and Iraqi Kurdistan to provide unarmed civilian protection, assessing risk, and collaborating with multiple stakeholders to create safe spaces for local change makers. His work as a documentary photographer and communicator attempts to resist the cynicism that can arise when one is exposed to atrocities, inequality, or injustice every day. He currently is the Communications Coordinator for the Christian Peacemaker Teams, a violence reduction organisation that supports local nonviolent change makers to challenge systemic roots of oppression and violence in their work of liberation. He has a Masters of Divinity (2008) from Anderson University, Indiana, United States of America.
This statement (originally in Khasi) was endorsed by more than 130 Khasi citizens of Meghalaya. If you are from Meghalaya and want to endorse the statement, message or WhatsApp on +91-9863097754.
We are living in a time of darkness in India as well as our state of Meghalaya, amidst violence and killings of hate.
We live under the shadow of the Citizenship Amendment Act., 2019, a law which has created an atmosphere of hate and is dividing the citizens in our society and various communities. And this has only gotten worse with the recent incidents of violence in Delhi, and closer to home, here in Meghalaya.
The violence which led to the deaths of Lurshai Hynniewta, Rupsang Dewan, and Ussaduddin, as well as various attacks and stabbings, at the hands of hatemongers and criminals shows a complete lack of remorse and lack of understanding over the value of life. The loss faced by their families is irreconcilable. Yes, the police has managed to arrest some of the perpetrators, but there are many more perpetrators who are on the loose and this threatens others and the overall peace and order in our state.
Meghalaya is faced with many difficulties, as well as opportunities and hope. The population of the indigenous people here is small in comparison with India at large, and they need protections, whether it is their land and resources, languages, their indigenous land systems and sacred forests, their traditional governance, like the Dorbar Shnongs and Himas, and several others. Whether these protections can be achieved only through violence and bloodshed? Through the propagation of hate? Whether we cannot think of other ways to protect ourselves? Yes, sometimes laws are passed that threaten us, and also the movement and entry of people from outside the state also makes it seems that our existence in the face of the earth is threatened; can violence and bloodshed be the only solution? The saying, “An eye for an eye” will not lead us anywhere, it will only blind us and our communities. And as enlightened citizens, we should not accept this and understand that even history teaches us that this philosophy of hate and violence will only beget more hate and violence. Therefore, those who murdered Lurshai Hynniewta, Rupsang Dewan, and Ussaduddin; those who assaulted people are nothing more than criminals and violent opportunists who should be caught immediately and punished as per the provisions of law.
What happened in Ichamati on the 28th of February 2020 and the subsequent assaults and stabbings, and hate mongering would only lead to a cycle of more hate and violence and would protect no one. All this would only create an atmosphere of hate and continue to create problems, not just now but to future generations.
We have our traditional institutions like the Dorbar Shnong from the bottom to the Raij, the Hima, to the District Councils, and to the Legislative Assembly. Let us strengthen these institutions and their democratic principles and expand ourselves and our thinking. We should mould and improve our governance structures that it benefits all sections of society, whether female or male, young or old and that governance, trade and commerce and others should be inclusive to all on the principle of equality before the law.
Differences will always exist amongst the citizens, in the country, or here in our state. And that should be our strength rather than seeing differences. We have different religious practices and different festivals celebrated across all cultures. We also have in our state different religious traditions, clan groups, and a multitude of different groups; this should be a matter of pride that this plurality exists. We should not let hate divide this plurality and create an atmosphere of fear in our state.
The problems which face us today, in the state and in the country, should be sorted out through democratic means and dialogue. And even if there are disagreements, the democratic right to protest and disagree should be protected along with the fundamental right of freedom of speech which entails the right to criticise as well. No matter our differences and disagreements, we should not let hate take over.
What happens next? Whether to continue with hate which leads to unnecessary violence and bloodshed? Whether we should let hatemongers and violent opportunists to take advantage of this atmosphere? We need to come together and unite, unite against fear, hate, violence and bloodshed. We should unite together for the future. We should fight hate with love, fight blades and iron rods with dialogue and arguments.
Therefore, we the citizens of Meghalaya and India come together and condemn the violence which has led to loss of innocent lives and that all those involved should be booked under the provisions of the law, and also appeal to all individuals and groups to stand united against hate and violence.
We demand that an independent inquiry be set up to inquire into the events leading to the violent incidents in Ichamati as well as the assaults and stabbings which took place subsequently in Shillong as well as in other places.
We demand that the Police should not be biased towards anyone and that all involved should be booked as per the law. Also, incidents of violence, including assaults, arson, and destruction to property, whether private or public, have been taking place periodically for the past few months and years, and the police should strengthen mechanisms to prevent such incidents from taking place.
We demand the creation of spaces for public forums and discussions, to debate about the law, to find ways to uplift our people and state, and to preserve our traditions. We encourage fearless naming of important issues that affect the State or the Indigenous people, and to debate publicly and in detail – founded on the fundamentals of truth – ways in which we can protect our own people.
We demand the indigenous and government institutions govern in a corruption-free manner, making sure that our neighbourhoods, towns and cities are safe for all. We demand the institutions execute the law in a just and fair manner without bias, and in accordance to the laws of the land. We demand the creation of spaces for public forums and discussions in our neighbourhoods, in our places of learning, where the public and students can gather regularly to discuss, to debate and to listen to the perspective and opinions of others.
We encourage the public to not be afraid to stop or to intervene when there is violence and killings – even if it is a small altercation – in order to prevent it’s spread.
We encourage the planting of seeds of mutual respect and love across generations and with one’s own children; and that our love of our own traditions and people should not be greater than hatred of others different from us.
We need to understand the importance that our people will not thrive and grow in isolation. History has much to teach us about this. We have rubbed shoulders with others from different places. There was also a time when we worked alongside others while we stood up for our own. But now we must chose the path of peace and love. We need to struggle against the hardships of our state and dangers our people face with wisdom, with truth, and lawfully based on democratic foundations. We should not be afraid to speak the truth, we should not be afraid to debate and defend our arguments by finding common ground in broad mindedness. We need to stand together to end the hatred and killing of each other, it only brings loss and death. Enough is enough.
Respected Sir,
First and foremost we express our gratitude to the government for taking several important steps to combat the outbreak of COVID-19 in our state.
As you know that majority of the women folks in our state are also domestic workers who earns their living with a basic minimum income, and even most of them are also single headed.
Sir, with due respect we request the government to also ensure security to the domestic workers population in our state. We have seen that the government has already allotted basic income package for the construction workers under the Construction Workers Welfare Board, and it is an appreciated move indeed.
Therefore in solidarity with the other mass population of the state the domestic workers of Meghalaya also wanted to strongly join hands in the lock down that has been announced by the government but at the same time we are also burdened with a trauma of survival, we really need the support of the government to ensure that we have a free ration and basic income package so that we will be able to feed our children especially at this time of crisis.
Thanking you and looking forward for a speedy assistance from the government
On behalf of all the domestic workers
Smti. W. Kharsyntiew
Advocacy Officer
National Domestic Workers Movement
Meghalaya Region.
In July 2012, 15 laborers died trapped in a coal mine in the South Garo Hills. This captured the attention of the Guwahati High Court, which directed the National Green Tribunal to look into the matter. This resulted in the infamous “coal ban” of April 2014, though the Tribunal didn’t issue a blanket restriction. It held, rather, that coal mining in the state had to be better regulated before it could be allowed to continue. Coal mining, as practiced in Meghalaya, is a hazardous business. Hundreds of people, some of them children, have lost their health, their limbs, and occasionally their lives scrabbling within the deep, dark, and narrow tunnels of the “rat hole” mines. Rivers have turned toxic, forests denuded, fertile land stripped barren, and the hills are so pockmarked with mines that landslides and avalanches are commonplace. Yet Meghalaya is an impoverished state that depends on extractive industry— revenues from coal and limestone mining constitute the majority of non-tax revenue in the state— and the ban was unpopular and ultimately unenforceable.
Rescue operations at the illegal coal mine at Ksan, East Jaintia Hills
In December 2018, at least 16 miners were submerged alive in the East Jaintia Hills, the most notorious coal district in the state. This happened while the Supreme Court was considering petitions to set aside the coal ban, and the tragedy made national headlines. Several disaster response teams were mobilized, and they launched the longest rescue mission in the state’s history. They only found two bodies. The Supreme Court finally called off the rescue in July 2019 and directed the state government to compensate the families of the deceased. Earlier that month, it had handed down a judgement that many in the state celebrated as a victory for mining. In reality, however, the Supreme Court only reiterated the Tribunal’s decision, holding that coal mining in the state would resume once the state government established a regulatory framework that took into account both the environmental degradation it causes and the risks it imposes on mine workers. Why, then, has the judgement been so willfully misconstrued?
For six years, coal mining in Meghalaya has been illegal in the sense that it violates an explicit decree. According to the Supreme Court, however, it had been illegal long before that, in the sense that it ignored the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which insists that all mines have to be licensed by the state government. No such licenses have ever been issued by the Directorate of Mineral Resources in Meghalaya. The state government has thus been collecting penalties on illegal coal mining for decades without addressing the underlying problem. For a long time, it was popular perception in Meghalaya that the Sixth Schedule somehow exempted coal mining in the state from central law. Yet this was never the official position, as the response to a RTI petition in 2008 revealed. Asked whether national legislation applied in the state, the DMR’s response was an emphatic yes. It further confirmed that no mining licenses had been issued, but the government did not “disturb” mining undertaken by local people. Why did the state government never enforce a law it acknowledged to be valid and applicable?
A Brief Timeline of Events in Coal Case
DATE
EVENTS
July 2012
15 coal miners die in the South Garo Hills
December 2012
The Guwahati HC transfers the matter of unregulated coal mining in Meghalaya to the National Green Tribunal
April 2014
NGT bans rat hole mining in Meghalaya.
October 2014
Kropha Committee reports 63 lakh metric tons of extracted coal waiting to be transported in the state, subsequently revised to 77 lakh MT. The NGT expressed surprise at these clearly inflated numbers but allows for transport.
March 2015
NGT notes widespread illegal mining and imposes a 10% fee on transported coal to be deposited in the Meghalaya Restoration and Protection Fund thereafter.
March 2016
NGT issues a moratorium on coal transport.
August 2016
Supreme Court reverses the moratorium on coal transport, extends the transportation period to May 2017.
Several subsequent transportation orders are issued, the tenth and final one concluding in June 2019.
December 2018
16 miners drowned in Ksan Mine in East Jaintia Hills District.
Supreme Court temporarily halts coal transport, only to allow it again a few months later.
July 2019
Supreme Court judgement directs the state to draft a scientific mining plan and regulate licenses as per the MMDR Act.
The Coal Economy
Coal mining in Meghalaya is technically an “artisanal” activity, which means only that coal seams are so thin and so deep that commercial mining is too unprofitable to sustain. This means that mining land is leased out as smallholdings that are “returned” once the coal is exhausted, with no regard for the consequences on the people who inhabit the dread landscape left behind. Coal dominates the lives of residents long after it has been extracted: a vibrant ecology that once supported farmers and herders and fishermen and hunters is reduced to crumbling hills and polluted springs. Coal robs people of their land and their future— until, in desperation, they know nothing else. Coal mining begets more coal mining, until finally there is nothing left.
Coal mining in the state once was truly artisanal: a small-scale activity undertaken for local consumption. That was until the coal boom of the last few decades, which has made some people so rich they forget anyone else matters. These coal barons are now political barons who hold the state hostage. Understanding how that happened requires a familiarity with how such mining actually works. Land in Meghalaya theoretically belongs to the community, not the state, as do the minerals that lie beneath it. This the Supreme Court recently affirmed. Under the legal edifice established by the Sixth Schedule, land is governed by customary practices, which were meant to be comprehensively codified by the three Autonomous District Councils. They never were. The resulting chaos has yielded a system ripe for exploitation. Several scholarly studies have demonstrated the alarming privatization of land in Meghalaya, where over the half the population is now landless.
The “community” to whom the land belongs is now a rentier class of absentee landlords, who control their vast coal fields from the cities. Sometimes this is achieved by manipulating the system— by “leasing” mines that officially belong to locals rather than owning them outright— and sometimes by breaking it. Once they have established access, mine-owners typically import labor for the coal season. One study conducted in the South West Khasi Hills in 2013 estimated that 35,000 of 50,000 inhabitants in the area during the mining season were migrant laborers from Nepal and Assam. (The full report of this study, which was undertaken by the North-Eastern Social Research Center in collaboration with Child Aid network, can be found in Volume One of the Citizens’ Report.) The dramatic impact of mining on migration patterns in the region, coupled with the increasing concentration of landholdings and reduced access to common and forest resources, are one likely reason for the deep hostility between “locals” and “outsiders” that has characterized state politics in recent years. The rage is certainly justified, if misdirected. The only people more dispossessed than the people who live on a land blighted by mines are the people who die below it.
Once coal has been mined, it has to be transported, usually to either Assam or Bangladesh. It is here that the state finally steps in— revenue is assessed by the truckload— and it is here that the real money is to be made. The state government receives its revenue at the various state borders and dispatches a quarter of it to the ADC at hand. Money is also exchanged privately: tolls to road and bridge operators, rent to warehouse-owners, bribes to border officials and police offers, protection money to various militias and politicians. Everyone, but everyone, is implicated in the filthy coal economy, and the people who benefit least are the people who own and dig the land beneath which the black gold broods. There are piles of illicit money to be had in the coal exporting business: trucks are smuggled past customs and checkpoints; they are loaded beyond their legal limits and their hauls weighed inaccurately; winding roads are blasted open exclusively for them. After the coal ban, however, the always profitable logistics of coal export bloomed into a shadow economy of mythic proportions.
The Grand Scam of “Extracted” Coal
The NGT banned coal mining in April 2014, when the coal season was winding down. In June, it appointed the Kropha Commission to assess the quantity of coal that had been extracted but not yet exported. According to audit reports, the average amount of coal mined and moved in Meghalaya annually is approximately 60 Lakh Metric Tons. Given the season was nearly over, logically only a small fraction of that amount should have remained in reserve. The committee, however, returned to the NGT with a figure of 77 LMT— suggesting, in keeping with auditors’ warnings, that coal miners generally under-reported their hauls to evade penalties. The NGT allowed this “extracted coal” to be transported, which it assumed would take three months. In the months and years to follow, official estimates of this “extracted” coal climbed steadily, as the chart below demonstrates. The initial transportation interval was also periodically extended for several weeks at a time, first by the NGT and then by the Supreme Court.
In November 2017, three and a half years after the ban, the Supreme Court issued the seventh such order, persuaded by the State Government’s claim that nearly 8 LMT of “extracted” coal still remained in the state. Several RTI petitions were filed in the months after that, none of which verified that number conclusively. An RTI petition filed in May 2018, however, revealed that over 70,000 transport challans were issued by the DMR during the four months following that order, many of them to people who had not identified themselves as miners to the Kropha Committee. Each challan allows for the transport of 9 MT of coal. A little simple arithmetic thus indicates that, by the government’s own account, 1.5 LMT of coal remained in the state after March 2018. The state then “discovered” a fresh cache of 5 LMTs and successfully moved the court for another transportation order. It did so yet again in December 2018, such that it apparently took over two years altogether to transport coal ostensibly left over from a single season of mining.
Beyond that, of course, there is illegal transportation. Local headlines in recent years have been dominated by “seizures” of coal depots that violated the NGT guidelines. Predictably enough, estimates about the quantity of illegal coal seized and/or stored remain disputed. The Meghalaya government alleges that 32 LMT of coal reserves exist in the state; the Katakey Committee, appointed by the NGT, settled on a more conservative estimate of 23 LMT. There have also been innumerable scandals about the theft, counterfeiting, and illicit sales of challan books. As recently as February, the Home Minister was forced to resign his portfolio for being, in the coy language of political operatives, “ineffective at curbing illegal transportation of coal.”
Coal Criminals
Follow the coal trucks in Meghalaya and you follow the money. Agnes Kharshiing and Amita Sangma were doing precisely that when they were brutally attacked by a mob in the East Jaintia Hills in November 2018. The mob was (allegedly) led by Nidamon Chullet, then the President of the Jaintia Hills Truck Owners and Drivers Association. Chullet has been entrenched in the coal mafia for years. In 2012, he ran an illegal market in the Jaintia Hills along with several surrendered militants and was already wanted for murder. He is now a politician with the NPP, the ruling party. The assault case against him drags on, sunk under the weight of an apathetic state, while Chullet is out on bail and appears to be thriving. He was recently publicly thanked by the Chief Minister for his expansive donation to the COVID-19 relief fund. Chullet is by no means unusual. The Citizens’ Report compares electoral affidavits against an official list of mine-owners in Meghalaya acquired from the DMR through RTI petitions. The results are staggering: eleven members of the current assembly are mine-owners, including the Chairman of the Law Commission. So is one of Meghalaya’s two representatives in the Lok Sabha. A similar analysis carried out for District Council members would surely reveal that they have been equally corrupted by the coal lobby.
Agnes Kharshiing – Recuperating from the attack (2019)
It is easy to see why coal interests in Meghalaya are so threatened by people like Agnes Kharshiing. They murdered P.N. Marbaniang, a policeman, simply for doing his job— how much more terrifying must it be to be confronted with someone with such a blazing sense of duty and such persistence? RTI activism is, by definition, a plodding enterprise. One soon learns the truth of the saying that the devil lies with the details, especially when the chasm between the law and the reality is so gaping it appears to be an abyss. The ladder across it is constructed laboriously, one patient enquiry after the next. The citizens’ report was built out of a dozen RTI petitions, filed by different people in different times and places and for different reasons. It was stitched together to offer the Supreme Court a complete account of the dilemma before it. In some ways, the court abdicated its responsibility when it ordered the state government to begin enforcing laws it has ignored for fifty years. This simplistic resolution prolonged the open season on mining that has prevailed since the original “ban,” and it has pushed the coal economy even further into the shadows. Yet perhaps the apex court had little choice, for there is no resolving the problem of mining in Meghalaya until we grapple with the perplexing question of regulating land under the Sixth Schedule. It is to that we will turn next.
One morning in 2009, the inhabitants of the Umkyrpong in the Jaintia Hills discovered that their village lands had been sold to a coal baron called Donush Siangshai. The village council— the dorbar shnong— had frequently objected to any such sale of their forest lands, which sustained several families in the village. Understandably perplexed, they filed a RTI petition with the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council. How was it, they asked, that the sale transpired without their consent? The response to their query unraveled into a massive fraud that implicated the former headman of Umkyrpong and several office holders within the JHADC. Fortified by this evidence, the dorbar shnongapproached the High Court of Meghalaya, which set the sale aside five years after the villagers filed their first RTI petition. The Umkyrpong case, while successful in its own terms, exemplifies a recurring and more recalcitrant problem: the tremendous challenge of regulating land in Meghalaya, a state with no cadastral maps, few registered titles, and a few too many institutions.
Land in Meghalaya belongs to the people, not the state. It is governed by customary law, which varies across districts (and frequently within them). Interpreting, consolidating, and codifying this lived law is one of the most important functions that the Sixth Schedule delegates to the Autonomous District Councils it created. In practice, the ADCs work in tandem with traditional institutions, such as village headmen and their councils, to determine who owns land and when it can be sold. Khasi law, for instance, recognizes both private land and communal land. Sales of communal land require the consent of the dorbar shnong before the KHADC can grant a no-objection certificate. In the Garo Hills, however, communal land is held in trust by the nokma (headman). In some areas, his consent is sufficient to obtain the NOC certificate from the GHADC required for sale. In others, the nokma first distributes the land, which is then sold privately. Settlement and title disputes are perhaps the most complex in the coal country of the Jaintia Hills, one of the many legacies of colonial rule in the region.
The Old Colonial State
The East India Company annexed Jaintiapur in 1835. The kingdom was loose confederation; the king controlled the lowlands, located in (what is now) Sylhet, while the hills were ruled by tribal chiefs, the most powerful of whom lived in Nartiang in (what is now) the Jaintia Hills. The proximate cause for the company’s intervention was the capture of “four British subjects” on the road between the capital and Nartiang. Relations between the hills and the plains had been strained for decades, partly because of the company’s exploitative monopoly of the lucrative limestone trade, and three of the men were eventually killed in what company courts described as “ritual sacrifice.” This case was made, to quote the historian Gunnel Cederlöf, “a pretext for the Bengal government to dismember Jaintia and take possession of the extensive lowlands north and south of the hills.” The hills, more difficult to control, were left to govern themselves.
British rule nevertheless left a lasting impact on the hill polities of erstwhile Jaintiapur. Formerly royal lands were converted into extensive “revenue” lands, control over which was subsequently inherited by the Khasi and Jaintia Hills ADC in postcolonial Assam. In the mid-sixties, this “united” ADC split into what are now the KHADC and the JHADC. Currently, therefore, the eleven districts of Meghalaya fall under the jurisdiction of three ADCs, and the “revenue” lands of the Jaintia Hills are controlled by the JHADC. The colonial state issued timebound leases to such “revenue” land, on the basis of which it assessed taxes—a process that enclosed common land and effectively privatized it. The JHADC continues this practice, with two significant differences: it issues “pattas” in perpetuity, thereby converting a lease into a landholding, and the land so granted is tax-free.
The onset of British rule also altered local governance in the region. The hill polities of Jaintiapur were decentralized: each village had its chief, its priest, and its council. A group of villages were organized into a district, and a group of districts into a chieftainship or kingdom. The Company’s intervention deposed the highest layer of governance, making everyone further down the hierarchy dependent on the colonial state, which supported village officials by granting them rent-free “revenue” land. This then allowed local agents of the colonial state considerable sway in deciding who got appointed to these posts as well as their responsibilities. One of the most important officials in the Jaintia Hills, for instance, is called a doloi. In precolonial times, according to the political scientist L.S. Gassah, dolois were elected for their lifetimes and exercised complete administrative control over their elakas (districts). Over the course of the 19th century, however, this shifted: dolois could only be “nominated” by their elakas for three-year terms, and their appointment had to be confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. This, alongside their fiscal dependence on colonial largesse, transformed dolois into bureaucrats— responsible for policing their districts and ensuring the flow of taxes—rather than political leaders answerable to their people.
The anthropologist Bengt Karlsson has described the even more radical transformation of “traditional” authorities in the Garo Hills. As is generally the case in Meghalaya, Garos are a matrilineal tribe. The patriarchal colonial state, unable to recognize women as political actors, insisted on dealing with their husbands instead, thereby empowering the nokma as the sole decision-maker over lands his wife had previously controlled. In the hills of colonial Assam, thus, some local leaders owed their authority to the colonial state, while others became functionaries of the imperial government more insidiously. In the postcolonial hills of Meghalaya, meanwhile, the Sixth Schedule has added another layer to the administrative hierarchy: the ADCs, which are responsible for appointing, supporting, and adjudicating between traditional institutions. There are now three separate institutions jostling for power on the ground—appointed officials representing the state government, elected members of the relevant ADC, and the traditional institutions of the tribal polity— and the relationships between these authorities form the meat of local politics. This tripartite tussle is particularly obvious in conflicts about the allocation and alienation of land.
The New Shillong Township
The alarming concentration of land in Meghalaya is perhaps the most pressing concern confronting the overwhelmingly rural state. The sociologist AK Nongkynrih argues that the underlying causes for this accelerating trend are fourfold: (i) intensifying stratification in tribal society (ii) land acquisition by the state for developmental purposes (iii) the transfer of land to extractive industry (iv) encroachment of land by non-tribals. All four causes compound one another, a process facilitated by the byzantine administrative framework. This was perhaps most evident in the many conflicts that arose during the development of New Shillong Township.
New Shillong has been in the works for three decades. The second Shillong Masterplan (1991-2011) envisioned the proposed expansion as a way to reduce urban congestion. The first phase of acquisitions, in the early 90s, did not raise much concern. The second phase began ten years later, and several irregularities slowly emerged through RTI petitions. One such petition revealed, for instance, that less than a fifth of the land acquired had been allocated to people who qualified as “tribal” under the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, which stipulates that land in the state can only be sold to tribals. The rest was distributed to government agencies and “non-tribal” individuals, most of whom work for the state government.
First you privatise the commons, then develop real estate, then sell it back to the government / New Shillong Township
One such beneficiary was the Civil Services Officers Housing Co-operative Society, and a follow-up RTI petition revealed that the society had been allotted 45 acres in New Shillong for the throwaway price of one rupee per square foot. This wide disparity between intent (urban decongestion) and consequence (a subsidized gated community for bureaucrats) eventually made its way to the High Court in a PIL filed in 2012, two years after the Adarsh Housing Society scam in Mumbai made national headlines. The petitioner argued that the land was illegally allocated to the society (because most of its members were non-tribals) and was subsequently sold at a huge loss to the state exchequer. State filings in the case suggest that the loss incurred was perhaps not that bad: the land that had been sold for one rupee had been acquired for three rupees, further demonstrating that the true victims of the transaction were its original inhabitants, who had long since been evicted. The government eventually carried the day with the argument that the Land Transfer Act only required land transfers to non-tribals to be sanctioned by a “competent authority”— which is to say, itself— and that they were in the public interest.
A number of other discrepancies have made their way into public debate about New Shillong over the last decade. One of the bigger scandals, also arising out of RTI petitions, was about the allegation that forged documents had been involved in the original sale of the land to the government. While the title dispute originated between local residents and two individuals based out of Shillong, it eventually spilled over into a broader debate about the division of jurisdiction between the dorbar shnong (which opposed the sale) and the District Commissioner (whose office had registered the fraudulent title deed and then acquired the land). The KHADC, meanwhile, appears to have been left out of the official deliberations entirely. The forgery case remains under adjudication, but the allegations point to deeper dilemmas about how easily the legal infrastructure regulating land can be manipulated to suit vested interests. This is partly because certain basic questions remain unresolved. Is New Shillong being built on land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act? If so, how is compensation to be determined, and who is eligible? Is it, as the state government has argued, simply that private land has been sold to the government and is now being leased from them? Is the government enclosing common land in the process, or was it already private? Who is, then, the ultimate authority in ascertaining the ownership of a specific tract of land? How transparent are the processes through which such determinations are made?
The Trouble with Translation
At the heart of regulatory confusions in Meghalaya lies a fundamental conundrum about recognition and reconciliation: how can customary norms to be articulated in legal terms that are legible to the contemporary state? Figuring that out is the responsibility, and arguably the purpose, of the three ADCs, but the burden of this translation is enormous. Consider, as an example, another tangle thrown up by the saga of New Shillong: the case of Shnong Tynring. Customary law in the Khasi hills, as elsewhere in Meghalaya, is filtered through territorial groupings. Several dongs (localities) make up a shnong (village). A group of shnongs is a raid—common land is referred to as Ri Raid— and several raids comprise a hima (kingdom). Each territorial unit roughly corresponds to an administrative level in the traditional system of governance. Yet these terms can only be loosely translated between the very different lexicons employed by the state and the tribe. When does a dong become a shnong? How are new shnongs recognized? Who settles territorial disputes between shnongs? Can a shnong sell land without the consent of the dongs that compose it?
In the wake of the New Shillong acquisitions, seven dongs within Tynring— a large shnong located close to the urban development that manages the land around it— filed an RTI petition with the KHADC seeking clarity on such questions. The KHADC referred the matter to Hima Khyrim, under whose jurisdiction Tynring falls. Predictably enough, officials in the Hima deflected the questions, arguing that such traditional institutions were not covered by the provisions of the RTI Act. The dongs appealed to the Meghalaya Information Commission, which ruled that both ADCs and traditional institutions were public authorities under the RTI Act. It also held that it was the responsibility of the ADCs to respond to petitions regarding their deliberations and decisions.
Bah Smek Marboh of Hynnriewshnong/Tynring, Original RTI applicant trying to establish rules and laws about establishment of villages under the traditional system
The Information Commission’s decision opened the door to everyone trying to understand and document interactions between the ADCs and the traditional institutions over which they have oversight. For the inhabitants of the seven villages, however, it was only one step in a long and seemingly futile legal odyssey. They had filed the RTI petition hoping to use the information they gleaned to argue that the state government ought to compensate them directly for any land acquired from their territory. They wanted to be recognized as shnongs proper, rather than dongs under the control of Tynring’s sordar (chief), whom they insisted was corrupt and indifferent to his people. Their quest took them to nearly every court in the state, right up to the division bench of the High Court. All of them denied the villagers relief. Four years later, relations between the sordar of Tynring and the KHADC had apparently soured, for he was in the High Court again, arguing that he had been unfairly dismissed from his post. The court ordered fresh elections, which he won, and the conflict drags on. The sordar continues to try sell more land; his people continue to resist him. The rule of law, if you live in Tynring, is a ceaseless whirligig; constantly swirling and yet never moving.
Autonomous District Councils are frequently blamed for failures of governance in Meghalaya. Their inefficiency, however, is a feature of the system rather than an anomaly. In seeking to preserve traditional institutions by transforming them, the Sixth Schedule only further entrenched the colonial paradox it inherited. The ADCs it invented—simultaneously accountable to everybody and responsible for nobody— were practically designed for endemic corruption and abuse. Sometimes, as in the case that opened this essay, the legal system works. The RTI infrastructure helps citizens uncover specific illegalities and then the judiciary provides a remedy. More often it does not, because structural inequity cannot be meaningfully addressed in this piecemeal fashion. The eternal liminality of the ADCs also indicates just how indebted our institutional imagination remains to condescending colonial assumptions about tribal peoples and the need to “gently assimilate” them into modernity. The Constituent Assembly’s recognition of indigenous sovereignty was a landmark moment in world history, but it was only half the task. It falls to us now to build institutions that can live up to that sweeping democratic vision.
The Meghalaya RTI series has a success story to report. On 27th June, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge-sheet against Ampareen Lyngdoh, JD Sangma, and AL Lyngdoh for their alleged involvement in the White Ink Scam, which occurred during Ampareen Lyngdoh’s tenure as Education Minister of Meghalaya. The scam, which occurred over a decade ago, was quite simple. In 2008, the Deputy Inspector of Schools advertised for applicants to the post of assistant teacher in government schools, and a list of selected candidates was issued the following year. Several teachers from Jowai (and later from Shillong and the Garo Hills) then approached Agnes Kharshiing, convinced that the selection process had been tainted by corruption and vested interests. RTI petitions filed by her in February 2010 revealed that the “score sheets” of candidates in several places had been doctored with white ink.
“Whole pages had been tampered” she would later say “the right people who need jobs weren’t getting them. These people had been temporary teachers, and they only got 1500 rupees a month, and yet they were teaching children in these small rural areas because it was their passion. And then they went through the whole selection process, only to find their jobs taken away. For years they suffered, because these politicians were using the search for canvassing and nepotism, but I am so glad they didn’t go down a criminal path or embrace violence but came to me to seek a legal remedy. Of course I had to help them!”
Helping the disaffected and disappointed teachers would eventually prove to be a decade-long quest. Ms. Kharshiing first tried to lodge a criminal case against Ms. Lyngdoh on the basis of her RTI findings. “The RTI is an investigative tool,” Ms Kharshiing explained, “but the FIR is the strength. That is why my strategy included both. The FIR is how we ensure these matters do not just disappear under political pressure—they could not just ignore it. With RTI petitions you can get bogus replies or delay responding, but with the FIR they have to take it seriously.” In her first FIR, back in February 2010, Ms. Kharshiing alleged that Ms. Lyngdoh, while Education Minister, had supervised the alterations at the behest of a wide spectrum of her colleagues, all of whom wanted to ensure that their preferred candidates received the jobs, even when they were thoroughly unqualified to teach children.
Ms Kharshiiing tried to file FIRs on four separate occasions and encouraged teachers who subsequently approached her to file them as well. Her persistent efforts were stymied at every turn, until a group of teachers filed a writ petition with the High Court in October 2011. The High Court examined Mr. Sangma, then the Director of DEME (Directorate of Elementary and Mass Education), who testified that he had tampered with the selection records at the order of Ampareen Lyngdoh. The court ruling also included a list of the politicians and bureaucrats who had made “recommendations” regarding candidates. Finding that sufficient prima-face evidence for “massive irregularities, arbitrariness, and manipulation” had been unearthed by the RTI petitions, the High Court ordered the CBI to investigate the matter more thoroughly.
The CBI submitted its report to the High Court in May 2012. The report “established that the majority of candidates… were appointed in an irregular manner by changing their original marks… in the score sheet after applying white fluid on the original marks awarded by the board and the grand total of the score sheet was also changed in the similar manner.” The report also indicted a broad swathe of the local political class for having influenced the selection process. By this time, however, the matter had been appealed to the Division Bench. The judges transferred the investigation to the state government a few months later, which appointed a “High Level Scrutiny Committee” (HLSC) entirely comprised of bureaucrats from DEME and the Ministry of Education. The court further directed the HLSC to consider the findings of the CBI Report, and to terminate the service of any “tainted” candidates it discovered. The HLSC submitted its report in July 2013, and hundreds of people had lost their jobs by February 2014. These “terminated candidates” then appealed to the Supreme Court for relief.
Angela Rangad & Agnes Kharshiing
Meanwhile, Agnes Kharshiing (along with Angela Rangad) continued to try to register a criminal case against Ampareen Lyngdoh for abusing her authority and forging official documents. Finally, in October 2012, a Judicial Magistrate directed Laitumkhrah Police Station in Shillong to register the FIR, and the investigation proceeded in fits and starts until 2016. Exasperated, Agnes Kharshiing filed a writ petition with the High Court, requesting that the criminal investigation be handled by the CBI. The High Court dismissed the petition because of the pending Supreme Court case.
The Supreme Court ultimately returned the case to the High Court for fresh consideration in 2017. The litigation was by then a tangled mess of appeals, writs, petitions, reports, and investigations. As the judge noted then: “the private parties [can be] broadly categorized in three: candidates who were declared unsuccessful… and initiated the litigation in this Court; candidates who were selected in the impugned selection process but whose services were terminated pursuant to the report of HLSC; and the candidates who aspire induction into service, essentially in displacement of the tainted…. Parallel to these civil litigations, a FIR relating to the same selection process remains pending for investigation wherein several other complaints and allegations have been clubbed.”
Patiently wading through the paperwork, the court first commented on the discrepancies between the HLSC report and the CBI report, finding several flaws with the state government’s enquiry. Rather than holding elected officials and bureaucrats accountable, the HLSC focused only on the narrow question of “tainted” candidates. “We have not an iota of doubt,” the court said, “that the exercise in the name of HLSC was farcical and was only a cover-up, aimed at saving and shielding the persons who had, with impunity, hijacked and polluted the system.” Dismissing the HLSC report, the High Court turned to the CBI enquiry, which indicated the sweeping nature of the scam: dozens of letters from bureaucrats and politicians at every level of government “recommending” lists of candidates, resulting in “gigantic manipulations by way of obliterations, insertions and cuttings in the score sheets.” The scale of the corruption, the court held, “could only vitiate the entire selection process.” “Had it been a matter of certain illegality or irregularity of lesser magnitude” the court went on to argue “we might have considered retention of unblemished candidates in the service, but any such exercise would be only giving credence to a process we have found to be fraudulent. This selection process… if allowed to remain even in part, would wreck and ruin the rule of law.”
The High Court thus ordered fresh selections and directed the CBI to investigate Ms Lyngdoh and her alleged conspirators in 2017, seven years after the first RTI petition in the White Ink Scam was filed. While the implementation of the order has hardly been perfect, with teachers being reappointed in some districts without due process, Ms. Kharshiing’s painstaking investigation into the scam demonstrates the power of the RTI infrastructure. The process might be slow, incremental, tedious, and exhausting, but it can be mighty. We can only hope that all the politicians and bureaucrats implicated in this scam will now be held accountable for stealing the future from an entire generation of Meghalaya’s children. In an interview this week, Ms Lyngdoh— now a member of the state assembly— said she had “full faith in the judicial system.” This once, so do we.
Let me leap-frog the unnecessary baloney and plunge straight into the point. But then again, before I do that, let me ‘walk’ you through a speech delivered by Meghalaya’s Head of the MDA Government on World Environment Day (WED) 2018, exhorting the youth to ‘protect the environment’ by minimising the use of electricity. Chief Minister, Conrad Sangma, had said,
If we can do this (save electricity) even for a day, it will, to a great extent, reduce pollution, help save energy and protect our environment.
He also advocated the need of a “plastic-free environment” and to make “our planet a liveable place.” He had vowed to do his bit to reduce environmental pollution by “walking to the secretariat on June 5.” Known for his social media expediency, he had also hash-tagged #WorldEnvironmentDay2018, and animatedly tweeted, “Walked from home to office to celebrate. It should be our agenda to reduce our carbon footprints. Our actions today will define the future for our children.”
What a noble tweet indeed! But why didn’t he at least chirp about the colossal carbon footprints of Meghalaya’s mineral-devouring mercenaries? What kind of air are they promising the future generation?
But politics, as they say, is not a landscape; it is a cloudscape, owing to its unpredictability. So when we fast forward from World Environment Day (WED) 2018 to August 2020, circumstances evince that perhaps Conrad Sangma’s ‘atoxic’ grimaces and amiable appearance in fact ‘mask’ an incapacitated, two-faced phoney, who walks only on WED, talks and tweets a lot, but in reality is Janus-faced.
I will ‘expedite’ my point.
On January 15, 2020, ‘The Shillong Times’ had reported, “(There are) more than 20 Coke Factories in Shallang, West Khasi Hills that claim to have valid documents and have fulfilled all formalities and norms before commencing operations through Single Window Agencies.” Please take cognisance of the last three words. On the first day of August 2020, this report was confirmed by none other than Conrad Sangma’s colleague in the government, S.K. Sunn, Chairman of the Meghalaya Assembly Committee on Environment, in a press briefing. The principal point at the press meet was, ‘Since August 2018, coke factories in West Khasi Hills have proliferated; most of them have Single Window Clearance.’ Again, please take cognisance of those last three words. Now let us review what the August 1, 2020 edition of ‘The Shillong Times’ mentioned: “The Meghalaya Assembly Standing Committee on Environment has taken cognisance of the mushrooming of coke factories in the Shallang belt of West Khasi Hills during the last two years as 16 new coke factories were given clearance to by the Single Window Agency.” Those last three words, Single Window Agency/Clearance, reappear again!
In the website of the state government’s Commerce and Industries Department, there is a notification numbered IND. 49/2016/10, dated 18 June 2020, where it is mentioned that the “Chairman” of this “Single Window Agency” is the “Chief Minister” himself. To be fair, Conrad Sangma didn’t implant himself in this Agency. An incumbent Chief Minister of Meghalaya has always been the Chairman of this Agency since the beginning of the world, whose task is to “expedite” and “fast-track” clearances to set up industries in the state of Meghalaya. He can grant or withhold permission based on his and his officers’ wisdom. Thus, any permission given to multiple coke plants, dubitable cement factories, or gluttonous limestone miners since 2018, had to pass through the hands of Conrad Sangma. In the context of 2020, it is judicious to ask, “Are those hands ‘sanitised’?” Because the clearances to establish 16 pollutant-emitting coke factories since 2018 at Shallang, West Khasi Hills, that are relentlessly smoking-up under the pristine Meghalaya sky, had the mandate of the Chief Minister. He’s the boss of this Single Window Agency now. So is he really for the protection, preservation, and restoration of the environment? Or is walking to office the only way he knows to maintain clean and unpolluted air?
As the Head of the MDA Government and this Agency, he and the Meghalaya Assembly Committee on Environment must ‘clear the air’ by answering some questions:
Why did the Single Window Agency expedite clearances to a mind-boggling 16 polluting factories between 2018 and 2020 in Shallang area alone? Was any environment-impact assessment carried out prior to that? How much revenue will the state earn from these ventures? What steps will these 16 take to ‘restore the environment’?
Did the State Pollution Control Board follow the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board by preparing a ‘Zoning Atlas’ [for the uninitiated, please google this] to identify ‘Sensitive Zones’ and ‘Pollution Sensitivity’ of the area?
Coke, in layman terms, is a purified form of coal. So, when the NGT had already banned coal mining in Meghalaya in 2014, where is the coal used by these factories coming from? Is rat-hole mining still happening in coal-rich Shallang?
To get coke, coal has to be burnt at over a 1000 degrees. What fuel are these factories using? If it is firewood or charcoal, where is the source located? Are any forest areas being destroyed in the process?
Coke is usually mixed in concoctions to manufacture steel or cement. Are these factories in connivance with cement and iron ore industries operating in Jaiñtia Hills and Byrnihat? Is there a collusion between these factory owners, politicians, and government officials of the Commerce and Industries, Forest or Mining departments?
Was the Chief Minister misled or pressurised by any party MLA/MLAs, businessmen, technocrats or bureaucrats to give clearances to so many factories located in one place? If he was, will he withdraw the clearances as they definitely pose health risks to the people? If he wasn’t, is he willing to ‘quarantine’ himself and let his Deputy take over and order an independent judicial or CBI probe? Will he expedite the matter to a neutral agency for a fair investigation to ‘uncloud the air’? Is this one of the reasons why he vacated his seat in Parliament and jostled his way to Chief Ministership?
These are some questions that demand answers. But will he speak up? Will he clarify how the haphazard establishment of multiple coke plants determine a more “liveable place?” Will he explain his double-tongue approach towards environmental policies of the state? Because his outward soft-speaking self seemingly hides his mischievous agenda. Or will he emulate Prime Minister Narendra Modi who doesn’t address hard-hitting questions? If he doesn’t address this issue then I will lend voice to more questions hovering around Meghalaya’s polluted air such as unabated limestone mining, remorseless timber smuggling to dubious factories, issuing of deceitful transport permits, and others that warrant an explanation from the horse’s mouth.
More pertinently, will organisations like the ICARE, Shillong We Care, COMSO, and other Brave Hearts of the Khasi ‘jaidbynriew’, particularly those in West Khasi Hills, pin the Chief Minister? Or will they sweep it under the rug because coke fetches a better price than coal? Will the Opposition Congress Party dig up this issue or is it knee-deep into this ruckus because something is definitely ‘coking’; I’m not cooking anything up!
Parting shot: ‘A Politician, they say, does anything and everything in his capacity to get elected or gain power and wealth, and is more self-seeking. A Statesman, however, does anything and everything in his power to do his best for the welfare of the people he represents, and is less self-seeking.’ The difference, thus, is unclouded. Just saying.
The Meghalaya Govt. has passed The Meghalaya Right to Public Services Act 2020 without any pre-legislative consultation.
The Preamble of this law states that it is
“an Act to provide for the delivery of notified public services to the citizens in the State of Meghalaya within stipulated time limit including liabilities of the government servants, in case of default”
Thma U Rangli-Juki has been campaigning for THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS FOR GRIEVANCE REDRESS AND SERVICE GUARANTEE IN MEGHALAYA Law, draft of which it had submitted to the government in 2013. Sadly, the law to this effect that was recently tabled, The Meghalaya Right to Public Services Act 2020 (MRPSA2020) is a law fraught with the problems of conception and drafting. A Law which is supposed to bring transparency and accountability of the Public Authorities for the citizens was placed in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly without any pre-legislative consultation. This lack of consultation is now apparent in the draft bill, which in its drafting is full of legal loopholes and is designed to frustrate citizens in redressing their grievances.
IDEA OF PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO SERVICE GUARANTEE FROM PUBLIC AUTHORITY
You apply for a driving license but you don’t know when you’re going to get it or whether you are going to get it or not. You’re entitled to a Scholarship, but are not sure when it shall be disbursed? You want duplicate copies of your marksheet but delay by MBOSE is exasperating… So we look for someone we know or try to grease the palms of someone who can ensure that we get the things out from the govt. department. As citizens, our encounters with Govt departments are full of grievances and frustrations. Much of the petty corruption which occurs happens because as citizens we seem to have no right to get timely and quality services from the Govt. departments.
What if all the Public Authorities proactively told the citizens, the timeline for the delivery of services, and also promised that if the services were not delivered on time, the govt servant responsible for such an act would be penalized and the citizen compensated for the trouble? What if as citizens our Grievances about the functioning of Public authority is acknowledged and heard?
A truly effective, pro citizen law about People’s Right to Public Service delivery would be to set up a legislative framework through which any citizen can have their complaints heard, addressed and redressed in a definite time frame. Any administrative structure requires mechanisms by which complaints and grievances can be registered and responded to. Within a democratic framework, where the Government and its functionaries are supposed to be accountable to the people, the redress of grievances is one of the most important means by which true accountability can be evaluated and deepened.
A citizen-friendly grievance redressal mechanism is an essential component in establishing a rights based framework. In case the citizen is unable to access rights/entitlements/services that he/she is eligible to access, there needs to be a time bound and effective method by which a citizen can file a complaint and have his/her grievance redressed. In such a framework the redress of grievances is a positive intervention to not only give the citizen their entitlement, but also provide information to the administration about shortcomings that may exist in the delivery mechanisms. This need is generic and extends to all branches of the administration. Redressal of grievances also requires support structures which are fairly independent from those implementing the program/s. Therefore, an effective and decentralized method of grievance redress is through a well designed Legislation that ensures citizens grievances are heard, registered, addressed and redressed.
PROBLEMS OF THE MEGHLAYA’S RIGHT TO PUBLIC SERVICES ACT, 2020
MRPSA2020 conceives of the interface between the public authority and citizens merely as a temporal relationship, as in that Public Authority are only responsible for timely delivery of services. Although timely delivery of services is an important responsibility of public authorities, but time is not the only thing a citizen seeks. Quality of service and respect for legal entitlement promised by laws and schemes are as important as time bound delivery. Citizens’ grievance is not just that she did not get her scholarship, cash transfer in time but also that the scholarship and cash transfer were adequate and proper. Citizens’ RIGHT TO PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY is both time and quality of the services delivered.
MRPSA2020 does not talk of the quality and entitlement at all.
Implementation of MRPSA2020 is left on the whims and fancies of the governmental bureaucratic structure. It does not for instance mandate that all public authorities shall come under its preview. Only certain services which the government notifies from time to time will come under this law. This is dangerous. For instance, will Mining Department come under this law? Or, PWD’s payment of contractor’s bill or Planning Department or the Tourism Department looking after a rural tourism project? The law is intentionally silent about such questions.
Most glaringly MRPSA2020 is silent about the nature of Public Service rights the public authority have to publicly share. In other similar laws which are in operation in the states like Delhi, such citizens rights have to be put in the public domain as Citizen’s Charters. By omitting from the principal act, the overall framework under which such information about the Rights/Citizen’s Charter, MRPSA2020 is a law with minimal application and is open to executive misuse.
If MRPSA2020 was truly a pro-people law it would have made the frameworks of people’s right to public service/Citizens charter part of the principal act. For instance every public authority had to mandatorily publish
(a) the details of all the goods supplied and services rendered by the public authority and the name, designation and contact details of person or agency through which such goods are supplied or services rendered and timings during which such services are supplied or services rendered
(b) the conditions under which a person becomes entitled for goods or services, and the class of persons who are entitled to receive such goods and avail services;
(c) the quantitative and tangible parameters including weight, size, frequency of the goods and services available to the public;
(d) the qualitative standards of the goods and services available to the public;
(e) complaint redressal mechanism including the time within which the complaint be disposed of and the officer of the public authority to whom such complaint may be made;
(f) the name , designation, contact details and addresses of individuals responsible for the delivery of goods or rendering of services
(f) Those matters deemed urgent that shall be redressed immediately upon receipt of the complaint and in any case no later than 24 hours after receipt of the complaint.
(g) Those matters for which mandatory compensation is to be paid.
Even in its limited scope, MRPSA2020 is not serious in penalising the defaulting officer. Maximum penalty is Rs. 5000 for one offence and Rs.20000 for multiple offences. In times where transport licenses or mineral transportation challans can sell for much more than those amounts, the penalty will not deter corrupt officers and government staff from keeping citizens from getting their entitlements.
Moreover, the fine would be imposed by a State Public Service Delivery Commission, a commission made up of people nominated by The Chief Minister and a Minister of the Government nominated by the Chief Minister himself. This is a recipe for non-independence and a pliant body. It is shocking that the selection committee as envisaged by MRPSA2020 does not even attempt to make itself a fair and balanced body. For instance under Meghalaya Lokayukta Act selection is done by The Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of the High Court. Even under the RTI Act, Leader of the Opposition is part of the selection process. Moreover MRPSA20202 does not have any process by which citizens can suggest names to a search and selection committee. State Public Service Delivery Commission is in danger of becoming a space for political appointment or retirement benefit for bureaucrats.
Shockingly, MRPSA2020 does not specify how the Commission members can be removed. It is a glaring drafting error. Even if a Commission member indulges in Corruption or crimes of Moral Turpitude, there is no section or clause in the law which will allow that member to be removed.
By centralising the Commission, MRPSA2020 also makes it difficult for citizens to approach the commission. It would have made more sense if the commission was district based.
MRPSA2020 will have to be amended to rectify its drafting and legal mistakes. But TUR demands that such an amendment should be properly discussed and put in the public domain so as to have a law that
Brings all public authorities under its purview.
Service delivery should include not only a timeframe but quality of services and entitlement of citizens.
Citizens should get a right for timebound redressal of their grievances.
Every Public authority by law should be made to publish a citizen’s charter and update it regularly. Failure to publicise the Citizen’s charter and update it should also be penalised.
State Public Service Delivery Commission should be constituted transparently through a search and selection committee and final selection should be done by a body which includes Leader of the Opposition as well as the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Accountant General of the State.
State Public Service Delivery Commission should be decentralised to the district level.
Penalty against the Public official(s) responsible for the delay or disruption of services shall also be entered in the service book.
State/District Public Service Delivery Commission can also recommend disciplinary action against the official.
Citizens’ whose rights as conceived by this law should also be entitled for compensation from the defaulting officers and public authority.
Lyngba ka RTI ba wad ka seng TUR, ngi la ioh ia ka list kaba don ia ki kyrteng jong ki nongtrei-nongbylla sngi kiba ka Sorkar ka kam ba ka lah dep ai ia ka song jingiarap bad jingkyrshan pisa kaba long Rs 2100 (ia ki nongdie madan, nong trei iing briew, nongbylla sngi) bad Rs.5000 ( ia ki labour ne nongbylla mistri shna iing ba lah register bad ka Labour Dept naduh mynshuwa) na ka bynta ki bnai ba don ka jingkhang dam ha ka sien ba nyngkong ka jinglynshop ka khlam Covid19 ha ka snem 2020.
Ngi la ioh ban iakren lyngba ka phone bad ki katto katne ngut ki nongtrei-nongbylla sngi kiba dei hok ban ioh ia katei ka jingkyrshan pisa na ka Sorkar. Hynrei kaba sngewsih ka long ba kiba bun na ki ki ong ba ki khlem ioh ia kata song jingiarap pisa. Don pat kiba ioh tang Rs. 700 ym ia kata ka Rs 2100 bad kumta ter ter.
Kine harum ki dei ki kyrteng jong ki nongtrei-nongbylla sngi kiba paw ha ki kot RTI bad ngi pyllait paidbah ia kine ki kyrteng khnang ba phin lah ban peit bad wad ia la ki jong ki kyrteng. Lada phi shem ba ka kyrteng jong phi ka don ne paw ,hynrei phi khlem ioh satia ia kata ka pisa ne phi ioh tang shiteng na kaba lah kular, ngi don hok ban dawa na ka sorkar ban pyllait ia ka pisa jong phi.
Lada phi dei ki nongtrei -nongbylla sngi bad phi lah apply hynrei phi khlem mih kyrteng bad khlem ioh jingiarap ia kata ruh ngin buddien.
Phi lah ban Phone bad whatsapp sha ngi ha une u nombor 9863097754 lada phi shem ba:-
Ka kyrteng jong phi ka don hynrei phi khlem ioh satia ia ka pisa.
Lada ka kyrteng jong phi ka don hynrei phi ioh tang Rs 1400 ne Rs 700 ne duna ia ka Rs 5000
Lada phi dei ki nongtrei- nongbylla sngi bad phi lah apply ia katei ka song jingiarap pisa hynrei ka kyrteng jong phi ka khlem mih bad phi khlem ioh jingiarap ei ei.
Ha kane ka por ba lah wan lynshop biang ka khlam ha ka wat ba ar, ngi ki nongtrei nongbylla sngi ngi dei ban ieng tylli bad dawa na ka Sorkar ba ka dei ban kyrshan pisa ia ngi. Kane ka dei ka hok jong nga jong phi ki nongtrei nongbylla sngi. Ka dei ka hok jong ngi ban ioh ka bam ka dih, ka bai iing bai sem, ka koit ka khiah bad ka pule puthi ia ki khun ki kti. Ngi don ka hok ban im ka jingim ba pura.
List Of Beneficiaries Who Got Rs. 2100 under Social Security for Labour Chief Minister’s Relief Against Wage Loss Scheme
List Of Beneficiaries Who Got Rs. 5000 under Meghalaya Building And Other Construction Workers Welfare Board.
The 2’nd wave of the Pandemic swept through the country leaving a trail of destruction everywhere; it was evident even in our tiny state, how the wave has ravaged through many unfortunate households. Yet here we are, still having to deal with people who think the virus isn’t real; and worse yet, people who know the virus is real but are spreading misinformation to the public, creating more confusion, and making it more difficult for people to come to the right conclusions.
These half-baked intellectuals came out in droves on the comment sections of various social media handles, where the news article about the DC’s order for shop owners to get their staff vaccinated before they can open their shops again. First, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the DC of East Khasi Hills for having the mettle to deal with a population such as ours. A population which will complain that the government does nothing for them but when the government is extending its helping hand, they don’t want to comply, and I am very sure if everything goes wrong again, they will blame the government yet again for…”not doing anything”. I am referring to the government’s vaccination program in the state of course.
The DC is trying her best to help ease the crisis in our state, which at present, there are two. One, the Covid crisis that’s staring us right in the face, and the other, the economic crisis faced by the people of the state which was an outcome of the first. The DC is tasked with solving both problems at once. What is she to do? She can’t just allow all economic activities to open; what if there’s a sudden spike in cases, so much that all the hospitals in the state are filled up? What if you or a loved one caught the virus and can’t find a single vacant bed in any hospital? Will you blame the DC then? The only solution that seems plausible is for the vast majority (at least 70 -85%) of the population to get vaccinated, it seems to be working fine for most of the rich countries who were first in line to acquire the vaccines. But as I’ve mentioned before, our population is filled with those who either cannot grasp the concept of what a vaccine does or those pseudo intellectuals that will not waste a single second of their day spreading misinformation about the vaccine. Countless hours have been wasted on the latter bunch, trying to clarify and rectify whatever misconceptions they had about the vaccine, but to no avail.
They call the DC’s move “authoritarian”, which may seem so, but what can the DC do? She has to stop these two crises as soon as possible and trying to reason with what seems like ‘a brick wall’ at this point, isn’t helping. I must agree that the DC’s move might incite more fear and hesitancy in the public, considering how thick most of our people are. So, I would like to provide an alternative!
While this entire imbroglio is going on, we seem to forget the most important individuals who are at the forefront of all this, the healthcare workers! Every healthcare worker will either directly or indirectly have to deal with the outcome of whatever decisions are made on the issue. Hence, it is rather nauseating to see comments of people who are against vaccination saying, “my body, my rules”. Well, if you chose to not vaccinate citing “my body, my rules”, then I think the DC should instead pass an order that allows healthcare workers to choose whether or not they should treat an unvaccinated person suffering from Covid19. Why should healthcare workers bear the brunt of someone else’s unfounded choices/decisions? In the end, it is the healthcare workers (and their families) who are at risk because some self-centred person made choices that only (seemingly) benefits them! As unethical as it sounds, I feel it would bring about a more balanced feel to settle this issue. The healthcare workers should not be the victims of people’s arrogance anymore. Also, if the ‘anti-vaccine’ brigade has any suggestions for a better alternative to stopping the pandemic, then I’m sure we would all love to hear it; because as of now the best option we have is the vaccine (as suggested by real professionals tirelessly working in this field).
Ki nongdiemadan wat la ki long ka kynhun kaba don ha trai duh jong ka pyrnon, pynban ki long ka kynhun kaba laitluid tam bad ki bun kiwei pat ki para nongshong shnong kiba kwah ban їoh lem ia ka kajuh ka jinglaitluid ban long kynrad bad long shakri hi da lade їalade. Kum kane ka jinglaitluid mano bym kwah? Ha kajuh ka por pat ka jingim ki nongdiemadan ka dap da ka jingїakhun lynter, khamtam ha kane ka Nongbah bad ka Jylla Meghalaya ha kaba ka aiῆjong ka Sorkar India kam pat shym la treikam satia bad kane ka buh ia ka jingim bad ka kamai kajih jong ki nongdiemadan ha ka jingeh bakhraw. Hynrei ym tang ia ki nongdiemadan, ki paidbah nongshong shnong ruh ki shem jingeh namar katba ym pat pyntreikam pura ia ka aiῆ kan long kaba kaba shitom ban wanrah ia ka jingkylluid bad ka jingitynnad jong ka Sor Shillong.
Ki nongdiemadan ki dei ki nongdie jingdie bad ki long ruh ki nongkhaїi kiba rit bai seng pynban ki noh synῆiang shikatdei sha ka їoh ka kot bad kamai kajih jong ka Jylla. Ha satlak ka pyrthei ka kam die jingdie ha madan bad rud lynti ne ha ki jaka paidbah ne hajan ki їew ki hat bad kiwei, ka dei ka lad kamai jakpoh kaba la rim tam. Ha ka nongbah Shillong ruh ka їew tynrai kum ka їewduh ka sdang na ka їew madan bad shi bynta na ka їewduh ha ka por hyndai la ῆiewtang ia ka kum ka їewmadan.
Hapoh ka Jylla ki nongdiemadan ki don man la ki District bad subdivision bad ha ka Nongbah Shillong ki don napdeng ki nongdiemadan kiba la kamai jakpoh ne im ja na ka kam die jingdie ha madan mynta la jan lai pateng, kaba mut na ka kmierad sha ki khun bad sha ki khun ksiew kiba dang їai bteng ia kane ka kam. Ka long pat kaba sngewsih ba ha ka Nongbah Shillong bad Jylla Meghalaya ki nongdiemadan kim їoh ban kamai ja da kaba suk bad na ka por sha ka por ki shah pyndik bad shah kyndang ha ki bor Municipal ne ki bor Hima ne ki Dorbar Shnong ne ki bor District. Ha ka jingshisha ka aiῆ jong ka Sorkar India, ka Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act 2014, ka la don tangba ka Sorkar Jylla kam pat shym pyntreikam ia ka bad kane ka buh ia ka kamai kajih jong ki nongdiemadan ha ka jingeh bakhraw bad kumta ki nongdiemadan ki їai dawa na ka Sorkar Jylla.
Kumno ka Sengbah ki nongdiemadan ka sdang? Ka Sengbah jong ki nongdiemadan ka sdang ban pun, ban kha bad longdoh longsnam hadien ka jingїakynduh lang jong ki nongdiemadan kiba shong die jingdie ha kylleng ki thaiῆ jong ka Nongbah Shillong naduh stand Jeep (hajan Qualapaty) shaduh Motphran, GS Road, Khyndailad, Jail Road, Polo, Civil, Barik, Dhanketi, Laitumkhrah bad shawei. Nalor nangta ka la don ruh ka jingїakren bad jingїasyllok halor ki jingeh jong ki nongdiemadan kiba don ha kiwei de ki District.
Ha ka 2 tarik u Jylliew 2016 ka Thma U Rangli Juki ka la pynmih bad sam ia i kot lyngkdop iba batai lyngkot shaphang ki hok jong ki nongdiemadan bad ka aiῆ. Ha kane ka kot lyngkot ka TUR ka la ban jur ba ki nongdiemadan ki dei ban їawanlang bad ban dawa ia ki hok bad ban pyntreikam ia ka aiῆ na ka bynta ki nongdiemadan.
First Pamphlet
Ki sngi bad taїew kiba bud hadien ka 2 tarik Jylliew, ki long ki por jong ka jingїakynduh kaba khah khah hapdeng ki nongdiemadan bad ki dkhot jong ka TUR na ka bynta ban їakren bad їatai bniah halor ki hok jong ki nongdiemadan. Kawei na ki jingїakynduh kaba nyngkong kaba la long ha kawei ka step hadien ka 2 tarik Jylliew, hapoh ka Compound jong ka “Baby Land”, Umsohsun bad ha kane ka jingїakynduh ki nongdiemadan ki la їakren-їatai halor ki mat kiba pher bad khamtam eh kumno ban їakhun pyrshah ia ka jingshah kyndang, ka jingshah knieh ki mar ki mata bad ka jingshah pynsangeh ka kamai kajih ha ki bor Municipal bad kiwei. I Kong Angela Rangad bad Gertrude Lamare kiba la їadon lang ha kane ka jingїakynduh ki la їashim bynta da kaba shah skhor bad buh ha ka jingthoh ia ki jingeh, ki jingsngew bad ia ki mat ba ki nongdiemadan ki kdew. Katba lah ban kynmaw na ka liang ki nongdiemadan kiba ki їadon lang ha kane ka jingїalang ki long Kong Lin, Kong Imi, Bah Oris, Bah Shane bad kiwei.
Naduh kaba sdang hi bad ha man la ki jingїalang la ju pynsngew ia kane kawei ka mat ba kongsan, ba ia ki jingeh jong ki nongdiemadan dei tang ki nongdiemadan hi kiba sngewthuh bad dei tang ma ki hi kiba lah ban ai jingmut bad ban batai kumno ban weng ia kita ki jingeh. La ju pynsngew ruh ba ki nongdiemadan da lade їalade kin їalamkhmat bad їakhun na ka bynta ki hok jong ki.
Ki jingїalang bad ki jingїakynduh ki la bun bad ym lah shuh ban buh ha ka jingthoh bad ha ki sngi kiba sdang ki nongdiemadan bad khamtam eh ki nongmihkhmat na ki thaiῆ bad jaka shongdie kiba pher ki la їapynlut por shisha. Kawei ruh ka jingїakynduh kam shym la long kaba lehnohei bad ha man ki jingїakynduh ki nongdiemadan ki pan jingshai bad їatai halor ka aiῆ bad ki hok jong ki. Ka jingїalang kaba la long ha Youth Center ha Don Bosco, ha shuwa ban don ka General Meeting ban seng bad jied ia ki nongkitkam ba nyngkong jong ka Seng, ka la long ka jingїalang ka ban sah jingkynmaw namar ha kane ka jingїalang u Bah Bhogtoram Mawroh u la ai ka jingpynshai, lyngba ka power point presentation, kaba bniah halor ka aiῆ kaba їadei bad ki nongdiemadan bad u la wanrah ruh ka jingїanujor bad kdew ia ki jingїapher jong kawei pa pawei ka section kaba don ha ka aiῆ jong ka Sorkar India bad ka Sorkar Jylla. Kane ka jingїalang bad ka jingbatai ka la plie war bad pynshai kdar ia ki jingmut jingpyrkhat bad ka la nang pynskhem ia ka jingїakhun.
Kaba bud ia katei ka jingїalang ka dei ka General meeting ha Bethany Society, Dongktieh Laitumkhrah, ha ka Khatsaw Tarik U Jylliew 2016. Ha kane ka sngi la thaw, la pynlong bad la suit la shor ia ka Meghalaya & Greater Shillong Progressive Hawkers and Street Vendors Association (MGSPHSVA) bad la jied ruh ia ki nongkitkam kiba nyngkong kaba kynthup ia kine harum:
President- Lasara Marbaniang.
General Secretary- Shane Thabah
Assistant General Secretary- Shanlang Kharbuli.
Treasurer- Roney Lyndem
Assistant Treasurer- Imina Kharmuti
Lasara Marbaniang – First President
Ka MGSPHSVA ka kynthup ia baroh ki nongdiemadan hapoh ka Jylla kiba na ki jaitbynriew bapher bapher bad kiba dei ki nongshong shnong ka Jylla Meghalaya. Ka seng ki nongdiemadan ka pdiang bad pyndonkam ia kine ki jait ktien ha ki jingїalang bad kiwei de ki kam jong ka, kita ki long ka Khasi, Garo, English bad Hindi.
Ka MGSPHSVA ka їeng bad treikam na ka bynta ki hok jong ki nongdie madan katkum ki Aiῆ bad ka Riti Synshar jong ka Ri (Constitution of India). Nalor nangta, ka Seng ka їakhun bad їaksaid tyngeh ban pynurlong ia ki jingangnud kaba la pruid dak ha ka article ba saw (4) jong ka Riti Pynїaid Kam (constitution) jong ka Seng (MGSPHSVA).
Ka MGSPHSVA ka dei ka seng ha kaba la jan phra phew na ka shi spah (80%) ki dkhot jong ka Seng ki dei ki kynthei bad ka Seng ka sngew sarong ba ki nongїalam ba hakhmat duh jong ka ki dei ki kynthei. I President ba nyngkong jong ka MGSPHSVA, I dei I Kong Larasa Marbaniang bad haduh mynta la їalam ia ka Seng da I Kong Imina Kharmuti iba long I President. Ka Seng ka la ju pynlong ruh ia ki rally ban pynsawa ia ka sur bad ka hok jong ki kynthei, khamtam eh ka jingshngaiῆ bad jingїada ia ki kynthei kiba die jingdie ha madan bad rud lynti.
Shane Thabah – Founding Secretary
Kawei na ki jingїalang ban pynsawa ia ka sur bad ki hok jong ki kynthei kaba la long ha khyndai lad ha Nohprah 2016.
Tang mar ia sdang treikam ha ka snem 2016, ka MGSPHSVA ka la pynlong ia ka jingїalang bad jingїakhih paidbah ha syndah jong ka Additional Secretariat bad ka Seng ka la ai ruh ia ka dorkhas hakhmat u Myntri Rangbah ka Jylla ha ka 23 tarik u Jylliew 2016. Kane ka dorkhas ka kynthup ia ki jingdawa ban pynsangeh shi syndon ia ka jingpyndik bad jingkyndang ia ki nongdiemadan bad ba ka Sorkar Jylla ka dei ban pyntreikam noh mardor ia ka aiῆ jong ka Sorkar India ka Street Vendors (Protection and Regulation of Livelihood and Street Vending Act 2014.
Ka Dorkhas sha u Myntri Rangbah Ka Jylla 23 Jylliew 2016
Ki bnai kiba bud ki la long shisha ki por kiba eh bad ki jingїakhun kiba jwat, na ka por sha ka por ki nongdiemadan ki shah beh, ki shah knieh ki mar ki mata bad ki nongїalam ki la hap ban їamareh sha ki thanat bad sha ki їingshari.
I AM A HAWKER CAMPAIGN
Namar ba ka Sorkar kam sngap bad ai ia ki jingdawa, ka Seng ka la mudui ha ka їingshari, ka Meghalaya High Court. Ka jingmudui bad jingduwai kaba la buh hakhmat ki nongbishar ka long ban pyndam noh shi syndon ia ka aiῆ jong ka Sorkar Jylla kaba їadei bad ki nongdiemadan bad ban pyntreikam noh ia ka aiῆ jong ka Sorkar India. Ka jingїakhun ha Їingshari kam pat kut haduh mynta ruh, hynrei ka jingїaishah bad jingskhem jingmut jong ki nongїalam bad ki dkhot jong ka Seng ka la long ka borbah kaba pynlah ia ki nongdiemadan ban bteng ia ka kamai kajih jong ki haduh mynta.
Kyndit kynsan ha ka snem 2020 ka khlam covid19 ka la wan lynshop ia ka Ri bad Jylla baroh kawei. Ha kane ka khlam ka Sorkar ka la pynbna ia ka jingkhangdam bad ka jingkhangdam ka la neh da ki bnai. Kane ka jingkhangdam ia ka trei ka ktah bad ka kamai kajih ka la tangon tyngeh ia ki nongdiemadan bad ka la don ruh ka jingpyrshang kaba jur na ka liang ki bor Sorkar bad ki Dorbar Shnong ban thawlad ban pynduh syndon ia ka kam die jingdie ha madan.
Ha ka jingshisha kane ka jingpyrshang ban pynduh ia ka hok ki nongdiemadan ka long ka kam be-aiῆ bad ki nongdiemadan sa shisien ki la hap ban їengskhem triang ban їakhun pyrshah ia ki bor kiba thmu ban pynduh ia ka kamai jakpoh jong ki.
Ka Seng ka khlem shongthait bad hapdeng ka jingkyїuh, jingtieng bad jingartatien namar ka jinglynshop ka khlam, la pynlong ia ka jingїalang jong ki nongkitkam bad nongmihkhmat ha madan Golflink ha ka Saw Tarik Jylliew 2020 bad ym pat lap ba sdang ka jingїalang ki bor pulit bad Magistrate ki la wan ban pynsangeh noh.
Ka Meeting ki Nongkitkam bad nongmihkhmat ka MGSPHSVA kaba la long ha ka 4 tarik Jylliew 2020. I Kong Imi kum ka President I la їalam khmat.
Aimi Kharmuti – PresidentPresident at the General Body Meeting at Khasi National Dorbar Hall
Ki jingeh kiba mih na ka jingkhangdam ki nangjur bad ki ban khia haduh katta katta ia ki nongtrei-nongbylla sngi. Wat hadien ba la plie ia ka їew ka hat ka la shim por da ki bnai ia ki nongdiemadan ban їohlad ban bteng biang ia ka kamai kajih bad kane ka jia hadien ba ka Seng hi ka la leit tynruh bad dawa na ki bor Sorkar bad ha kajuh ka por ka la tyrwa ia ki lad kumno ban plie biang ia ka kamai kajih ki nongdiemadan da kaba bud ryntih ia ki kyndon ka koit ka khiah. Ka Seng ka la sam ia ki Identity Card sha baroh ki dkhot bad ka la pynbeit hi ia ka rukom shong die jingdie ha madan da kaba bud ia u odd bad even number khnang ban lah ban teh lakam ia ka jingsaphriang u khniang covid19.
Ka Seng ka khlem shongthait bad ka la їasnoh kti bad ka Sorkar ban їakhun pyrshah ia ka khlam ha ka wat kaba nyngkong da kaba pynlong ia ka jinghikai shaphang u khῆiang covid19 bad kumno ban їada bad pynduh ia ka jingsaphriang. La pynlong ia kane ka jinghikai ryngkat bad ka jingkyrshan jong ka National Health Mission, Sorkar Meghalaya ha ki Tarik 12 haduh 23 tarik Risaw 2020, ha Soso Tham Auditorium. Kane ka jinghikai ka la long ka jingmyntoi ia ki nongdiemadan bad kumba phra spah (800) ngut ki nongdiemadan ki la wan їashim bynta bad shah hikai.
Haba ka khlam ka la tangon sa ha ka wat kaba ar, khlem tieng khlem riej ka Seng ka la mih shakhmat ban їatreilang bad ka tnat ka koit ka khiah lyngba ki bor District ha kaba pynbeit ia ka jingai injek tika ia ki para dkhot bad ia ki nongdiemadan. Ha kajuh ka por ka Seng ka їai buddien bad tynruh ia ki bor District ba kin pyrkhat nyngkong ia ki nongbylla sngi kum ki nongdiemadan ha ka por ba ki thmu ban plie ia ka їew ka hat bad ka die ka thied. Kumta da ka jingshimkhia bad jingkitkhlieh ki nongkitkam, ki nongmihkhmat bad da ka jingїatreilang jong baroh ki dkhot, ki bor District ki la kubur bad ki la thaw lad ban shah ia ki nongdiemadan ban sdang noh ia ka kamai kajih jong ki.
Kaba kham ai mynsiem ha kane ka kynti ka long ba da ka jingtrei shitom jong kawei na ki nongkyrshan, ka Reeju Ray, kaba la lah ban lum pisa na ki paralok bad da kane ka pisa la lah ban thied bad sam ia ki jingbam sha ki para dkhot bad kwiei ki nongtrei-nongbylla sngi, kum ki nongtrei їingbriew, nongniah taxi bad kiwei kiba donkam eh ha kane ka por ba ka don ka jingkhangdam. Ka jingsam ia ki marbam ka long kaba rit, hynrei lyngba kane ka pynpaw ia ka mynsiem ka jingїalong kawei bad ka phah ia ka khubor kaba shai ba ki nongdiemadan bad ki dkhot jong ka Seng ki don ban їakyrshan bad їarap kylliang iwei ia iwei pat.
Ka kmen ka sngewbha bad ka rongbiria ka dei ka bynta kaba kongsan jong ka Seng bad shi sien shi snem ka Seng ka ju pynlong ia ka jinglehkmen ban rakhe ia ka sngi ba la seng ia ka ha u bnai Jylliew. La ar snem kynthih ka khlam ka la pynthut ia kane ka rakhe lehkmen, pynban ha ka aїom Khristmas 2020 ka Seng ka la pynlong ia ka jingsam jaiῆ ha ka shnong Wahsohlait kaba don ha ki thaiῆ Nongspung. Bad la pynlong ruh ia ka Christmas carol ha ka Nongbah bad ki nongdiemadan ki la rwai ia ka jingrwai Khristmas “miet bakhuid miet ba jar jar” na ki jaka ba ki shong die jingdie. Ka Radio Big FM 98.3 ruh ka la pyntem ia ka jingrwai carol ba la rwai da ki dkhot bad nongdiemadan bad kane ka jingrwai ka la pynum ia ki dohnud jong ki nongshong shnong.
Ka seng ka la pyrshang ruh ban kner ia ki kti sha ki kam ka koit ka khiah bad ka pule puthi. Ka jingpyrshang kam pat shym la wandur bad kam pat їaid thikna. Ka seng ka ai khublei ia I Dr Wilbur Manner iba la їarap bad don ryngkat bad ka Seng ha ki por baroh bad kumjuh ruh ngi ai khublei ia ki nonghikai kiba la pyrshang bad їarap ia ka jaka pynkhreh kot ia ki khun jong ki nongdiemadan kiba їaleh ia ka eksamin Class 10 bad Class 12 ha kane ka snem. Ka Seng ka ai khublei ruh ia ka Dorbar Shnong Umsohsun kaba la shah ban pyndonkam ia ka їing shnong ban pynlong ia ka jinghikai kot.
Ka Seng ka dei ban nang tur shakhmat. Ngi don ia ka thong ban tei thymmai ia ka imlang sahlang bad ka synshar khadar bad barabor ki jingkylla ki sdang na trai bad na madan.
Palat shiphew snem mynshuwa ngi їohsngew ia ka sur thylli kaba ong “acche din” lane ki sngi kiba bha ki la wan, pynban kiei kiei baroh ki kylla khongpong khongdeh. Ka jingim ka la nang jwat, nang suhsat, nang hiran bad nang kordit.
Lada ki samla ki pule ia ka kaiphot, kaba dang shu mih shen, jong ka Niti Ayog halor ki thong jong ki kam pynroi lane kita ki “Sustainable Development Goals” kiba dei ban pynurlong ha ki Jylla ka thaiῆ shatei lam mihngi, kin shem ba ka lawei ka long kaba duh jingkyrmen. Ka Niti Ayog ka dei ka tnat jong ka Sorkar India kaba la tip mynshuwa kum ka Planning Comission. Ka dei ka tnat pyrkhat kam kaba ha khlieh duh bad ka kamram jong ka ka long ban thaw bad saiῆdur ia ki kam pynroi ha ka Ri. Ki dkhot jong ka ki kynthup ia ki stad ki jhad bad ki proh jabieng, naduh ki stad saian, ki stad kot “economist”, ki riewstad ka їoh ka kot, ka khaїi-pateng bad kumta ter ter.
Ka kaiphot ka їathuh shai ba ka Jylla Meghalaya ka dei ka Jylla kaba sahdien bad kaba troiῆ tam ha ka jingtreikam ban pynurlong ia ki kam pynroi haba ia nujor bad kiwei ki Jylla ka thaiῆ.Ka kaiphot ka mih na ka jingjurip ia baroh ki District jong ki Jylla ka thaiῆ shatei lam mihngi bad la jurip halor ki kot ki sla bad ki jingtip ba ki Sorkar Jylla hi ki ai bad їathuh. Hadien kata ki nongjurip ki thew, ki woh da ki diengkot bapher bad ki buh kyrdan katkum ka jinglah treikam jong ki Sorkar Jylla ban pynurlong ia ki khatsan (15) tylli ki thong pynroi kiba kongsan bad kiba hakhmat duh ban kyntiew ia ki nongshong shnong jong ki Jylla ka thaiῆ.
Ki 15 tylli ki mat pynroi ki long; ban rat dyngkhong ia ka jingduk bad jingїapthngan, ban pynїoh ha ki nongshong shnong ia ka jingim ba kmen, ka jingkoit jingkhiah, ka pule puthi kaba bha, ka umbam umdih bakhuid bad jaka leit shabar kiba paka, Ban pynїoh ia ki bor ding kiba khuid, ka kam ka jam, ka kamai kajih kaba biang, ka їoh ka kot kaba kyntiew ia iwei pa iwei bad ban pyndam ia ka jinglah shilliang. Ban seng ki kharkhana bad pyndonkam ia ka jingstad ki trai Jylla, ban thaw ki sorbah kiba bit ban shong briew bad ka mariang kaba khuid. Ban wanrah ia ka jingїalong mar ryngkat hapdeng shynrang bad kynthei.Ha kine ki bynta ka Jylla Meghalaya ka sahdien bad ka dei ka Jylla kaba troiῆ tam. Tang ka East Khasi Hills District ka paw ba ka lah ban leh bha ha ki katto katne ki mat bad poi ha ka kyrdan kaba sanphew hynῆiew (57). Katba kiwei ki District kum ka South West Khasi Hills, South Garo Hills bad North Garo Hills ki don ha ki kyrdan ba phraphew ar, khyndaiphew ar bad khyndaiphew phra.
Kane ka kaiphot kam dei tang ki dak jingkheiῆ, hynrei ki dak jingkheiῆ ki shat phalang ia ka jinglong jingman ka synshar-khadar bad ki kdew ia ka jingbam sap bad jingrunar ka treikam treijam. Mano ban shim ia ka jingkitkhlieh halor kane? Kito kiba la synshar ia ngi ha kine ki ar phew bad lai phew snem kiba la leit noh bad haduh mynta kim lah ban kiar ne kyntiat ia ka jingkitkhlieh.
Ka Jylla kan kynjoh sanphew snem ka rta bad ki nongshong shnong ka Jylla, khamtam eh ki khynnah bad ki samla kiba dang khie dang san ki ban dang im bad їaksaid bad ka jingim sa sanphew snem nangne shakhmat- Kaei ka ban jia bad kaei ka ban long ia ki? Kumno kin їohpdiang ia ka jingnang jingstad, ka jingkoit jingkhiah bad ka kam ka jam kaba biang?
Ka pule puthi kaba dei ka jingdonkam kaba kongsan jong ki khynnah bad ki samla ka la long kaba remdor bad kan nang rem dor ha ki snem ban wan lymda ngi pynkylla ia ki policy. Ngi kam ba ka Jylla, khamtam eh ka Nongbah Shillong, ka dei ka mecca jong ka pule dangle ha ka thaiῆ baroh kawei, phewse kane ka la long tang ka puriskam kai bad ki dak jingkhieῆ ha ka kaiphot jong ka Niti Ayog ki pynpaw ba ka Jylla ka sahdien bad ki nongshong shnong kim їoh ia ka pule puthi kaba bha.
Ka pule-puthi ka їasnoh bad ka bam, lymda ki khynnah skul ki їoh ka bam kaba tei ia ka met ka phad bad ka jingmut jingpyrkhat kin ym lah ban san pura ha ka jingnang jingstad. Nalor ka bam kaba tei, ki samla ki khmihlynti bad angnud ba hadien ka jingpule kin їoh ki lad kamai bad ki kam kiba biang briew khnang ba kin lah ban pynkhlaiῆ ia ka їoh ka kot. Pynban, ka kaiphot ka їathuh da kumwei ba ka Jylla Meghalaya ka troiῆ bad leh sniew palat ha kine ki bynta- ka jingduk, jingїapthngan, ka jingbym lah ban їoh ka bam ka dih bad jingbym kotbor jong ki briew ban thied ia ki jingbam kiba tei bad ka jingkyrduh kam ki їeng hakhmat jingkhang bad ki pynsyier shikatdei ia ka jingim bad kine ki kdew sha ka lawei kaba dum tliw tliw.
Ka їohkam їohjam ka dei ka mat kaba ktah ia ki samla. Ym lah ban len ba ka jingkyrduh kam hapdeng ki samla ka la nang kiew. Lada phi ithuh briew ne don jingїadei bad kiba don ha ka bor synshar phi lah ban їoh. Kane ka rukom treikam ka la pynsniew bad ka pynlong ia ki samla ba kin shaniah ia ka jingim jong ki ha kiwei. Kumta ngi dei ban pyndam shisyndon ia kane bad pynbeit ia ka rukom thung kam ha ki tnat Sorkar ne ki kharkhana ne ki dukan ne ki jaka treikam jong ki riewshimet kiba don hapoh ka Jylla.
Nangta ynda la їohkam ka mih sa kawei pat ka jingeh, ka tulop ne ka bai bylla pat katno? Hato ki nongtrei ki їoh mo ka tulop kaba biang briew ne ka “living wage” kaba ki lah ban im ka jingim kaba pura nadong shadong. Ha kine ki shiphew snem tam ha ka jingtrei kam jong nga, nga la їakynduh ia ki samla kynthei bad shynrang kiba trei bylla kumba khatar haduh khat hynriew kynta ha ka shi sngi, katba ka tulop ne ka bai bylla ka long kaba rit bad kaba poh dor tam. Ka long be aiῆ ban treikam palat ia ka phra kynta ha ka shi sngi bad ki nongaikam la ka dei ka Sorkar ne ki riew shimet ki dei ban siew da ka dor ia ki nongtrei kiba trei palat ia ka phra kynta. Nalor nangta ki dei ban batai shai ha ka soskular ne syrnot ai kam ia ki kamram jong ki nongtrei bad ruh ia ki hok ba ki nongtrei ki dei ban їoh.
Ki nongtrei la ki dei ki nongtrei Sorkar ne company ne jong ki riewshimet kum ha ki dukan bad kiwei ki dei ban їoh ia kine ki hok- (i) ka “living wage” lane ka tulop kaba biang briew (ii) ki shuti, kum “ka casual, medical bad earned leave” (iii) haba ki pang ki nongaikam ki dei ban buria ia ka bai dawai bad bai sumar pang (iv) ka bai skul ne “education allowance” (v) bai wai їing ne “house allowance” (vi) ka jingkynshew pisa ha ki “provident bad pension fund”, ha kaba ki nongaikam bad nongtrei ki dei ban ia synῆiang lang katkum ka aiῆ bad kiwei kiwei.
Kaei ba ngin khan ha kane ka por? Ka theme jong ka Youth Sunday mynta ka snem ka khot ia ngi ba ngin khan. Ngin khan aiu? Katkum ka Dienshonhi, ka kyntien khan ka mut, “pyrkhat; tim kῆia bad kyrpad kyrpon ia ka blei ban їathuh ia ka daw, ka dak ka shin…” Ka kyntien khan ka mut ruh, “Ngi khan haba khmih biang ia kaba la pyrkhat. Ka khan ka mut ka jingduwai bad jingїasaid”. Ki jingduwai kim long kiba pura ne myntoi lymda pynurlong ia ki. Kum ka nuksa, ka jingduwai na ka bynta kiba pang kan ym don jingmut lymda kiba pang ba jhia ki їoh ia ka lad sumar pang kaba paka. Kumjuh ruh ka jingduwai na ka bynta kiba duk ba kyrduh kam don jingmut lymda ki briew ki їoh ka kamai kajih, ka kam ka jam bad ka bai bylla kaba biang briew.
Katkum ka “National youth policy” ki samla ki dei kiba hapdeng 15 bad 29 snem ka rta bad kumba 30.6 percent ne laiphew na ka shispah ki nongshong shnong jong ka Jylla Meghalaya ki dei kiba hapdeng ka 15 bad 29 snem ka rta. Na ka khatphra lak ngut tam ki nongthep vote ha ka Jylla lah jan shiphew lak ngut ki dei kiba hapdeng ka 18 bad 39 snem ka rta. Lada don ei ei ban pyrkhat ka long ba ki samla ki dei ban їoh bhah ha ka synshar khadar bad ki ishu kiba ktah ia ka їap ka im jong ki ki dei ban long hakhmat duh ha ka jingtreikam jong ka Sorkar. Ym tang katta, ki samla da lade ki long ka kynhun kaba khlaiῆ bad ki lah ban wanrah ia ki jingkylla bad ki don ka bor ban saiῆdur ia ka imlang sahlang.
Ka por samla ka dei ruh ka por ba ngi rhem bad shongshit. Hynrei ka don ka jingїapher kaba khraw hapdeng ka jingrhem ha ryngkat ka jingtip, ka jingshemphang, ka jingleh tipbriew bad ka jingshongshit khlem pynshong dor bad pynshong nongrim. Ka jingleh shongshit ka їalam sha ka jingjot bad jingduhnong, hynrei ka jingtip bad jingshemphang ki tei ia ka jingim. Kumta ki samla ki dei ban shut jabieng, ban thud ban wad ia ki jingtip bad khlem tieng khlem riej ban kylli jingkylli bad їatai nia halor ki mat ki ishu bad ka їap ka im jong ka Jylla. Ki dei ban tei ia ka saiῆpyrkhat kaba pynїaid shaphrang bad tei ia ka longbriew manbriew, ym ban ran shadien.
“Nangta U Trai U Blei U buh ia u briew ha ka Kper Eden…ban sumar ia ka” (Jenesis 2:15)
To ngin ring dur ba ka Kper Eden ka dei kawei ka Hima/Ri/Jylla kaba donkam ban synshar, ban bishar bad ban pynїaid ia ki kam ki jam, ka trei ka ktah, khaїi-pateng bad ka imlang-sahlang. Katkum ka Kitab Jenesis 1:26-28 bad 2:15, u Blei u la buh ia “u briew” ban long sordar ne nongsynshar halor ka Kper Eden. Ka kyntien “u briew” hangne ka thew ia ki kynthei bad shynrang.
Ka Baibl ka don shibun ki jingїathuh khana kiba їasnoh bad ka kam saiῆ hima-sima bad khlem da ia phai dien jngai sha ka mynnor, ki nongpeit pyrman ia ka kam saiῆ hima ha Ri America ki kynthoh ba U President Ronald Reagan u lah ban don ka jingїadei lane shah pynїaid ne shah pyngngeit ha ka kynhun jong ki Nuclear Dispensationalist. Ka Nuclear Dispensationalism, ka dei ka rukom pyrkhat ba ia kane ka pateng mynta la synshar da u Soitan bad kumta ka thma kan jia bad yn pyndonkam da ki bomb nuclear kiba shyrkhei. Kane ka kynhun ka ngeit ba ia kane ka thma la їathuhlypa ha ka Baibl bad la mang lypa da u Blei.
Ki jaitbynriew Boer na ka Ri Holland kiba pynlong ia ka Orange Free State ha South Africa ki pynїasyriem ia ki trai Ri ne ki dohїong bad ki nong Kanan. Ki Boer ki thom da ka bor bad knieh ia ka khyndew bad ka synshar-khadar na ki trai Ri bad ki pynksan ba ka jingthombor bad jingjop ia ki dohїong ha Orange Free State ka long thik kumba jop bad їohkynti ki khun Israel ia ka Ri Kanan.
Kumjuh hapoh la ka jong ka Ri, ha ka snem 1917 ka Assembly jong ka Balang Presbyterian kaba long ha Mawphlang, ka la їakren shitrhem ba ka Ri Khasi ruh ka dei ban їashim bynta ha ka Thma France ne Thma bah banyngkong bad la rai ban phah ia ki samla khasi kum ki nongkit nong (labor corp) sha France hapoh ka jingїalam jong u Rev Shai Rabooh. Ha ka Thma bah banyngkong ka Ri Bilat bad ki Khristan ki ῆiew ia ka Ri Germany kum ka Hima u Soitan kaba dei ban pynjot. Kumta kylleng ka London bad shawei ki nongsharai Balang ki khlei bad pynmih ia ki “war sermon” ne ki jingїalap ‘tien Blei kiba pynshit bad wer ia ki briew ban їeng їaleh pyrshah bad pynїap ia ki German.
Ym lah ban len, ki nongjop thma ne ki nongsynshar leh donbor ki pyndonkam ia ka Ktien u Blei ban pynksan ia ka jingthom bor jong ki. Lada ki nongsynshar ki pyndonkam ia ka Baibl, ki nongshah synshar bad ki mraw ruh ki don ka hok ban pyndonkam ia ka Baibl na ka bynta ban tei thymmai ia ka synshar khadar kaba hok, kaba beit bad ka imlang sahlang kaba їaryngkat kyrdan.
Ka saiῆ hima-sima ne politic ka wan na ka ktien Greek bad ka thew ia ka shonglang ka sahlang, ka thew ia ka jingsynshar bad jingpynїaid ia ki Nongbah ne ki City-State. Ka thew ruh ia ka bor kaba pynїaid ia ka trei ka ktah, ka khaїi pateng, ka shong suk shong shngaiῆ bad kumta ter ter. Ha ki shnong Greek hyndai ka ju don ka jingїalum bad їakynduh lang jong ki nongshong shnong bad ha kine ki jingїalang ki їakren-їatai bad їa-rai lang na ka bynta ka bha ka miat jong ka Nongbah.
Ngi im ha ka Jylla synshar paidbah bad ia ka saiῆ hima-sima la pynїaid katkum ka Riti Synshar ka Ri. Ka Riti Synshar ka dei ka tyllong bad ka bor kaba ha khliehduh jong ka synshar ka bishar. Ka Riti Synshar ka ai ha ki nongshong shnong ia ki hok, ki jingkitkhlieh bad ki kamram ban pynїaid ia ka synshar khlem ka jinglah shilliang bad jingleh shilliang khmat.
Katkum ka Riti Synshar ka Ri India, man la ka san snem ngi jied ia ki nongthaw aiῆ kiba long ruh ki nongpynїaid ia ka jingsynshar bad ki nongїada ia ki hok jong ki nongshong shnong. Hoid, ka jingjied (election) ia ki nongthaw aiῆ lane ka electoral politic kam dei kaba sdang bad kaba kut jong saiῆ hima, hynrei ki don bun ki syrtap ha ka jylli jong ka saiῆhima naduh ka pynїaid shnong, ka kamai kajih, ka trei ka ktah, ka khaїi pateng, wat ka synshar ka sharai Balang ruh ka hap lang hangta bad kumta ter ter. Ha kajuh ka por pat, ka jylli jong ka thaw aiῆ ka dei kaba ha khlieh bad ka don ia ka kamram bad jingkitkhlieh pura ban khmih, ban pynїaid bad batai ia baroh ki bynta bad ki syrtap jong ka jingim bad ka imlang sahlang.
Ka Jylla Meghalaya kan sa dap Sanphew Snem pura bad ka dei kawei na ki Jylla jong ki ritpaid riewlum/trai Ri (Tribal minority) bad kumta la bsuh ia ki kyndon bad khyrnit ha ka Riti Synshar ban pynkyrpang bad їada ia ka Jylla. Lah ban kdew hangne kawei ne ar; na ki hynriew phew (60) tylli ki shuki hapoh ka Їing Dorbar Thaw Aiῆ ka Jylla sanphew san (55) tylli la mang kyrpang na ka bynta ki ritpaid trai Ri. Kaba mut ki ritpaid riewlum ne trai Ri hapoh ka Jylla Meghalaya ki synshar hi pura da lade ia lade. Kaba ar, ka Khyrnit ba hynriew (sixth schedule) jong Riti Synshar ka ai bor, ai iktiar ia ki ritpaid trai Ri ban їada, ban pynneh, ban pynїaid ia ka khyndew, ki khlaw, ki marpoh khyndew, ki um ki wah bad ban kyntiew ia ka tynrai bad kolshor.
Ha kine ki sanphew snem, lait na ka Aiῆ Bat Khyndew (Transfer of Land Regulation Act 1971), ym don kawei ruh ka Aiῆ kaba snah ne kaba ai jingkyrmen kaba la thaw ha ka Jylla. Pynban naduh ba sdang hi la pyntlot bor ia ka Aiῆ Bat Khyndew 1971. Naduh ki snem 1979, 1981 ter ter bad haduh ban da lop syndon ia ki bniat jong ka ha ka snem 1991 bad 1997 da kaba thaw ia ka Single Window Policy. Ka Sorkar bad ki riewkhwan myntoi bad kynhun jong ki riewshimet kiba napoh bad na bar ka Jylla ki їoh laitlan ban klun bad thied khyndew naphang khlem jingteh lakam.
Ki ritpaid trai Ri jong ka Jylla Meghalaya ki don ka jingїadei ba jan bad ka khyndew ne ka mei ramew. Ki pynithuh їalade bad ka khyndew kaba ki rep ki riang, ki trei ki ktah bad kim lah ban im ne ban long Jaitbynriew khlem ka khyndew. Phewse, katkum ka Socio Economic Caste Census Survey 2011 la shem ba hynῆiew phew hynriew na ka shispah (76%) ki nongshong shnong ha ki shnong kyndong ha ka Jylla kim longtrai shuh halor ka khyndew, ki im khlem ka khyndew bad kim don khyndew shuh kaba dei la ka jong ban rep, ban shong їing bad ban aiti pateng ha ki khun.
Ka jingduk jingkyrduh ka la nang kiew ha ka Jylla bad lah ban ong ba ka jingduk ka tied jingkhang ha jan man la ki thliew їing. Ka Report jong ka Planning Commission (mynta Niti Ayog) jong ka snem 2012 ka ong, “ba hapdeng ka snem 2009-10 ka jingdon kiba duk ha Meghalaya ka la nang kiew bad kumba sawphew hynῆiew na ka shispah (47%) ki don ki briew kiba duk ha ki shnong nongkyndong (Rural Tribal Poverty) ha ka thaiῆ shatei lam mihngi jong ka Ri India”.
Nalor nangta sa ka mat їohkam їohjam ki samla. Tang ban shu їohkam ruh kam pat biang, ka bai bylla ne ka tulop bad ki hok jong ki nongtrei-nongbylla pat ki long kumno? Ka dur kaba shai kdar ka paw ha ka Jylla Meghalaya ba ki nongtrei-nongbylla kim dei shuh ki nongtrei, pynban ki la long kum ki mraw bad ym don ba ῆiewkor ia ki.
Ka jinglong jingman jong ki nongtrei-nongbylla hapoh ka Jylla ka long kumne; (i) ki nonghikai skul kim їoh tulop thikna bad da ki bnai ka tulop jong ki ka sah kut (ii) ki nongtrei casual bad contractual ruh kim їoh tulop da ki bnai. (iii) ki nongtrei casual bad contractual ba thung lyngba ki labor contractor ym dei tang kim їoh tulop, ki shah ot sa san tyngka na ka shispah (5%) bad tam ia kata na ka tulop jong ki. Nalor nangta ki trei bordi haduh 12 ne 15 ne 18 kynta ha ka shi sngi. (iv) ki nongtrei-nongbylla ha ka Jylla kim їoh ia ki shuti kum ki casual leave, earned leave, medical leave bad kiwei. Lada ki pep trei ki shah ot ka bai bylla sngi bad ki nongtrei kynthei kim їoh shuti ha ka por pun por kha (maternity leave). (v) Lait noh ki nongtrei Sorkar ba pura, ki nongtrei-nongbylla hapoh ka Jylla Meghalaya kim їoh jingїarap bad jingkyrshan pisa ba pura na ki nongaikam ha ka por ba ki shitom bad shah sumar pang. (vi) ka bai bylla ha ka Jylla Meghalaya ka long kaba poh dor tam bad bun bah ki nongaikam kim siew tulop ia ki nongtrei jong ki katkum ka aiῆ minimum wage bad ka Sorkar ruh kam patiaw ban kyntiew ia ka bai bylla kaba dei ruh ban long katkum ka jingkiew ki dor ki mur, ki marbam mardih ha їew. Ha kawei pat ka liang ka bai wai їing ka kiew stet, ka bai kali ka kiew kumba suh u ‘nam ding sha sahit bneng, ka bai kot, bai skul bad bai dawai khlem sngewlem ki kiewdor man la ka por. Ka jingim ki nongtrei nongbylla ha ka Jylla ka long kaba kordit.
Ka jingkyrduh kam ka long kaba shyrkhei bad katkum ka sorjamin ka jingkyrduh kam hapoh ka Jylla ka kiew haduh shiphew na ka shispah (10%) tang ha u bnai April 2020.Ka Sorkar ka lah ban ai kam tang kumba arphew san na ka shispah (25%). Kaba tam hynῆiew phew san na ka shispah (75%) ka dei jong ki riewshimet/company ne kaba ki nongshong shnong shimet ki pynmih ne sengkam hi. Hynrei ki samla kiba kwah ban seng kam lajong ruh ki shem jingeh, khamtam kito ki bym don bai seng. Kim lah ban wai dukan namar ka bai wai ka remdor palat bad ym don ka jingteh lakam. Kim don bai seng ban їakob bad kiwei ki nongkhaїi kiba heh, lymda ki їoh jingїarap bad jingkyrshan na ka Sorkar.
Ka Meghalaya ka la їoh shiphew tylli ki elekshon naduh ka snem 1972 bad ngim pat shym la їoh mad thikna ia ki seng saiῆ hima kiba їeng bad treikam katkum ka thymmei saiῆpyrkhat jong ki. Ym pat don hi ruh ka seng saiῆ hima kaba їeng na ka bynta ka bha ka miat bad ka jingbit-jingbiang lang jong ki riewpaidbah, ki rangli ki juki bad kaba їeng halor ka nongrim jong ka jingїaryngkat dor ki kynthei, ki shynrang bad khun bynriew salonsar ha ka imlang sahlang. Hynrei kaei kaba ngi mad ka dei ka politic khwan myntoi, kamai spah, ka kylla ktien, kylla rong bad kylla seng kaba khah khah. Don tang kawei kaba ki nongsynshar ki їamir, ki їamynjur lang bad kata ka dei ka bor, ka spah bad ka khwan myntoi shimet. Kumta ka por ka dei mynta ba ngin pynduh noh ia kane ka jait politic kaba jakhlia.
Kaei kaba ka Jylla Meghalaya ka donkam kyrkieh mynta? (i) ban pynkhlaiῆ ia ka Aiῆ bat khyndew khnang ban lah ban pynneh ia ka jinglongtrai jong ki nongshong shnong halor ka khyndew, ban pynkhlaiῆ ruh ia ki aiῆ їada mariang bad ban pyndam noh ia ka single window policy. (ii) ka Aiῆ ban buh pud ia u ne ka riewshimet ban thied khyndew/jaka (Land Ceiling Act) (iii) ban teh lakam da ka Aiῆ bad pynlong ryntih halor ka bai wai dukan ne їing shong briew (Rent Control Act) khnang ba kan ym ban khia ia kiba duk bad kumjuh kan ym pynїap ia ki trai їing. (iv) ban burom bad ῆiewkor ia ki nongtrei-nongbylla kiba trei ha ki kam bapher, ban kyntiew ia ka bai bylla bad siew thikna man la u bnai ia ka tulop. (v) ban ai ha ki nongtrei nongbylla ia ki hok jong ki baroh kaba kynthup; (a) ka por trei kaba phra kynta shi sngi (b) ki shuti (k) ban kyrshan bai dawai bad bai sumar pang, ban kyrshan bai skul bad bai kot ia ki khun (vi) ban plie ia ki skul bad hospital paidbah kiba biang ki doctor, ki nongtrei bad ki tiar sumar pang kiba bha bad paka tam. (vii) ban thaw ia ki housing project ne ban die ia ki їing shong ha ka dor kaba jem sha ki nongtrei-nongbylla sngi. (viii) ban buh pud ia ka dor ka mur jong ki mar rep lane ba ka dor jong ki mar rep kam dei ban duna palat ia ka dor ba la buh lane ka Minimum support price (ix) ban їada bad kyntiew ia ki nongrep kiba shisha kiba kamai jakpoh na ki kam rep. (x) ban kyrshan pura ia ki samla ki bym don bai seng ban sengkam lajong. (xi) ban teh lakam da ka aiῆ ia ki hospital, ki skul, ki kolej bad skulbah ba pynїaid da ki riewshimet ne kynhun bym dei Sorkar. (xii) ban pynduh ne weng noh na ki jingmut jingpyrkhat ba ki kynthei kim lah ban їashim bynta ha ka synshar khadar.
Ka kam saiῆ hima kam dei kaba jakhlia, hynrei la pynjngut ia ka da ki kam bamsap, ka khwan myntoi, ka jingbuaid bor bad ka leh jubor. Ka shonglang ka sahlang kan kulmar hi thlim bad kan mih ka jingїapynїap bad jingїaumsnam para briew lymda don ka synshar khadar kaba hok, kaba shisha, kaba ai jingkheiῆ bad kaba pynїaid hok ia ki aiῆ ki kanun bad treikam katkum ka Riti Synshar.
Ka jinghikai tynrai ka long ban kamai hok, ban bam na ka umsyep bad ka hukum Blei ka long ba baroh kin san kin mer ryntih bad kin mad ia ka jingim ba tngen, ba khiah krat bad ba dap kyrhai.
“A! Blai Tre Kynrad kawa chadien map, kawa chakhmat-chaphrang їarap…Bad haduh kane ka sngi U Trai u la їarap ia ngi.”
Ngan ym klet ia ka khubor Snem Thymmai jong I Rev B.D Pugh ha ki snem 1980 kaba i їathuhkhana ia ka jingїaseng shaphang u Blei Janus jong ki nong Rom hyndai. Bun phew snem ki la їaid, hynrei nga kynmaw kyndiang ba I Rev B.D Pugh I їathuhkhana ba u Blei Janus u don ki khmat na shadien bad na shakhmat ruh kumjuh. Ar tylli ki khmat ki peit shadien bad ar tylli ki peit shakhmat bad ha ka jinglong khynnah ngi sngewlyngngoh, ngim sngewlah ngeit bad kumta ngi їarkhie shaid.
U Blei Janus u dei uwei na ki blei jong ki nongshong shnong jong ka Nongbah Rome hyndai bad u dei u ‘Lei ar khlieh, kawei ka khlieh ka phai shadien bad kawei pat ka peit shakhmat. Ka dur jong u Blei Janus ka long thik kumba la batai ba u don ki khmat na shadien bad na shakhmat bad katkum ka jingngeit ka long ba ki khmat kiba na shadien ki peit ia ka mynnor bad kiba shakhmat pat ki їohi ia ka lawei. Ha u Blei Janus ka mynnor ka bteng sha ka lawei, ka lawei kan ym lah їeng khlem ka mynnor bad ka mynnor ruh kam don jingmut khlem ka lawei. U Blei Janus u dei u Blei uba kongsan ha ka nongbah Rom namar ba u kdew bad pun lynti hapdeng ka mynnor bad ka lawei bad ha ka kti kamon u bat ia u diengduh bad kdew ia ki nongїaid lynti ba kin їaid ha ka lynti kaba beit.
Ka khanatang shaphang u Blei Janus ka long ba u dei u Blei jong ka jingsdang, ka jingkylla ki pateng bad u dei ruh ka jingkhang. Ki khanatang ki їathuh ba u Blei Janus u long uba kongsan namar ba u kdew bad pun lynti hapdeng ka ka thma bad ka jingsuk. Ka thma bad jingїaumsnam ki pynkynmaw ia ki nongshong shnong ba ka jingsuk ka long kaba kongsan. Ka thma ka hikai ruh ia ki briew ban tei pat ia ka jot ka pra ha ka nongrim jong ka hok bad ka jingshisha. Ka thma ka hikai ia ki briew ban їashong suk, їaῆiewkor bad burom kylliang. Kumta u Blei Janus u pun lynti hapdeng ka thma bad ka jingsuk, u “Lei Janus na shadien u їohi ia ka jingjot, ka jingjulor jong ka jingim bad na shakhmat pat u peit sha ka lawei kaba suk, kaba bha bad kaba dap kyrhai.
Ki snem ki leit, ki snem ki wan bad kumne ha kaba sdang jong u snem 2022 ngin shim ia ka por ban phai dien sha ka mynnor bad khamtam sha u snem 2021 uba dang shu leit noh bad ha kajuh ka por pat ngin peit shakhmat da ka jingngeit bad jingkyrmen ba ka jingim kan nang kham bha.
U snem 2022 u long ruh uba kongsan ia ka Jylla Meghalaya bad ki nongshong shnong jong ka namar ka Jylla kan kynjoh Sanphew Snem ka rta kum ka Jylla ba pura. Hoid, sanphew tylli ki snem ki la їaid bad ngi dei ruh ban buh jingkylli, haduh katno ka Jylla ka la roi? Haduh katno ki nongshong shnong ki la man bha? Ki la shong suk bad shong shngaiῆ? Ki la khiah krat? Ki la bit la biang ka kamai kajih? Bad Nangne shano ngin їaid?
Ha kawei pat ka liang ngi sngewnguh bad ai burom ia ki longshuwa kiba la trei minot bad shah shitom ban thaw bad saiῆdur ia ka Jylla. Dei halor ka syep bad ka jinglen lade jong ki ba ngi rakhe bad lehkmen lehrisa mynta. Ka long pat kaba sngewdiaw ba ha ki snem kiba la leit noh la pynduh bad pynjot la jan baroh ki bynta kiba ki longshuwa ki la tei na ka bynta jong ngi bad ki pateng ban wan. Ka mariang ka la jot pathar, ka imlang sahlang bad ka їoh ka kot ki lah shilliang, kiba duk ki nang duk tasam, kiba riewspah ki nang khie ka spah shimet, ki kynthei ki shah kynthoh beiῆ, shah shoh shah dat bad shah leh be ijot. La pynjngut bad pynpyut plak ia ka synshar-khadar da ka bamsap, ki kam pynїap bad shohnoh briew.
Ka Sorkar ka la kyndeh bad pynkhreh ban rakhe pura ia ka jingdap Sanphew Snem ka Jylla. Ki prokram bapher bad ka phuh ka phieng kin jyllei ha ka jingrakhe, hynrei hapdeng ka phuh ka phieng, ki jingeh, ki jingjynjar bad jingkordit jong ki nongshong shnong kin їai ud bad ka Jylla kan ngam sha ῆiamra lymda ngi pynbeit ia ki kynrum kynram, ngi pyndam ia ka bamsap bad pynduh ia ki kam pynїap bad shohnoh briew.
Ki jingeh kiba la don lypa ha ka Jylla kin їai bteng ban pyndik bad pynthut ia ka trei ka ktah bad ka shong suk shong shngaiῆ ha ka Jylla. Ka jingduk bad jingkyrduh kam ki lah ban pynim biang ia ki kynhun kieng atiar bad ki lah ruh ban pynkha ia ka kynhun jong ki riew runar ki ban leh ia ki kam pyntriem, ki kam tuh, ki kam shukor, ki kam rahbor bad pynїap briew.
Ka shong shuk shong shngaiῆ ka long kaba kongsan, hynrei ha ki khydiat snem kiba la leit ka la thut shikatdei bad ka la ktah ia ka kamai kajih, ka trei ka ktah bad ka їoh ka kot jong ki nongshong shnong. Shi sien pyrkhat ka long kaba phylla haba khyndai phew san na ka shi spah (95%) ki shuki hapoh ka Їingdorbar Thaw Aiῆ ka Jylla la mang kyrpang na ka bynta ki trai ri ki trai muluk, wat la katta ruh ka Jylla bad ki trai shnong ki im hapdeng ka jingsheptieng.
Hoid, ki don ki mat ki jura kiba donkam ban pdiang bad їatai da baroh ki nongshong shnong. Kaba kham kongsan ka long ban bishar hok ia ki bad ban leh thikna halor ki nongrim kiba skhem bad ki jingshisha. Kum ka nuksa, ka Punjabi Line ha them їewmawlong ka dei ka ishu kaba lah ban pynmih ia ka jingїaumsnam kaba shyrkhei, kumta ngi dei ban їakren shai bad їatai bniah halor ki nongrim ka history. Ki Mazabhi Sikhs kiba la shong shnong pateng la pateng naduh ka por ba la kynriah ia ka Head Quarter jong ka Sorkar Bilat bad ba la thaw ia ka Municipal Station ha Shillong ha ka snem 1878, ki don ka hok ban їoh ka jingїada bad jingїarap kaba shong nia bad shong aiῆ. Nalor nangta, ia katei ka jaka dei ban pynbha-pynitynnat shuh shuh na ka bynta ki jingmyntoi jong ki riewpaidbah salonsar. Kumta ngi dawa ba ha katei ka jaka dei ruh ban thaw ia ka jaka ap bus, ka jaka ri khyllung, ka jaka sumar pang paidbah, ka їew na ka bynta ki nongdie madan bad kumta ter ter. Phewse haduh mynta ka Sorkar kam kren shai kan leh aiu ia katei ka jaka? Bad ym don ba tip don aiu hapoh ka kaiphot jong ka High Level Committee?
Ki kam khajia pud bad ka Jylla Assam kin ym jah lymda ngi shah skhor, ngi bishar bad shim ki rai ki ban pynmyntoi ia ki paidbah kiba shong ba sah ha ki jaka khappud. Ha kiwei ki kyntien, yn lah ban weng ia ki jingeh bad jingїa khajia pud tang lyngba ka jingїakren-jingїasngewthuh jingmut hapdeng ki briew kiba shong shnong ha ki khappud. Nalor ki kot ki sla kiba pyni bad kdew ia ki pud ki sam, kaba kongsan ka long ban ai jingkyrshan ia ki shnong ki thaw ba kin thaw ki lad ki lynti ban wanrah ia bhalang, ka roilang ha baroh ki liang bad ban kyrshan ia ki kam pynroi kiba long shisha ka jingmyntoi ia ki paidbah nongshong shnong ha ki jaka khappud.
Ki trai ri trai muluk ka Jylla ki sheptieng їoh ba kiwei pat ki jaidbynriew heh paid kin tyllep ia ka jaidbynriew rit paid bad ia ka kolshor ne dei riti jong ngi. Ňiuma, kata ka jingsheptieng kam dei pat ban pynbor bad pynlong ia ngi ban shlei da ka jingisih ne jingїashun jaitbynriew. Ym don kano kano ka jingeh kaba ym lah ban weng hapoh ka Riti Synshar ka Ri. Ka Riti Synshar ka long kaba lah ban pynkylla bad pynїaid shaphrang katkum ka jingdonkam ki jaka bad jingkylla ka por. Lah ban їakren-їatai bad їakhun ban їada bad pynneh ia ka jinglong tynrai jong ngi. Hateng hateng la ju pynїasnoh ia ka jingwan rung jong ki nongbylla na bar Jylla bad ka jingtieng ba ki lah ban tyllep ia ka jingdon briew. Halor kane ym don jingeh ban thaw ia ki kyndon aiῆ kiba skhem ban tehlakam bad ki ban burom bad їada ia ki hok jong ki kum ki nongbylla sngi. Їa kane lah ban leh katkum ki aiῆ (Labour Law) kiba la don lypa bad ka Riti Synshar.
Ha baroh ki liang ka Jylla ka long sha trai duh, naduh ka koit ka khiah, ka pule dangle bad ka їoh ka kot. Ki dak jingkheiῆ kiba kdew ia ka jingїap ki khynnah kiba hapoh san snem ka rta bad jingїap ki kynthei ha ka por ba pun bad kha ki long kiba shyrkhei ha ka Jylla. Ka pule puthi ka la hiar bad ym tang ba ka hiar ka long kaba remdor bad mynta lei ka la kylla long ka lad kamai spah.
Ki nongshong shnong ka Jylla kin rakhe ia kata ka jingphohsniew bad jingithuhpaw kaba la pun da ki longshuwa slem bah naduh shuwa ba ka Ri India kan laitluid. Ka jingphohsniew ban synshar hi, ban pynїaid hi ia ki kam ki jam katkum ka jinglong tynrai ka jaidbynriew, ban kyrshan hi da lade їalade, ban kyntiew ia ka jingim bad ban pynneh ia ka mariang. Mynta kumne ha ka lyngkhuh snem ba Sanphew ki jingeh, ki jingduh lad, ka jingkyrduh kam, ki jingpang, ka jingduk bad ka jinghiar kyrdan ha baroh ki liang ki paw pen ryngkew, ki peit matsuh bad tynruh pyrshah ia ngi.
Sa tang shi snem tam nangne ka Jylla kan jied ia ki nongthaw aiῆ ki ban mihkhmat hapoh ka Їing dorbar thaw aiῆ. Lada ngi dang їakmen toh hoh bad shim ba ka kam jied nongthaw aiῆ/nongmihkhmat ka dei tang ka kam sam pisa ne sam marbam mardih ne sam kombor ne tiar. Kaba mut ba u/ka nongmihkmat ne kita kiba angnud ban long nongmihkhmat ki don ban pynbiang pisa ne ki tiar ki tar ha man la ki їing їapbriew ne їingkhawai ne hospital ban pynthied dawai ne kiwei ki lat. Lada ngi kubur ia kane ngi їashim bynta lang ha ka pop pynthame bad shukor briew kaba la buh ia ka Jylla ha kane ka jinglong kordit kaba mynta. Lada ngi kubur ngi buh ruh ia ki pateng ki ban wan ha ka jaka khrai khlieh.
Ki don bun kum ma nga kiba la kha bun bnai hadien ba la plie ia ka Jylla Meghalaya ha ka 21 January 1972. Ngam shym kynmaw ban kylli na i mei (bam kwai ha dwar u Blei), kaei kaba i sngew ne pyrkhat shaphang ka Jylla ba pura. Nga wan na ka longїing kaba don ha trai jong ka kyrdan pdeng ha ka imlang sahlang (Lower middleclass) bad ngam artatien ba i mei bad i pa ki dap da ka jingkmen namar ba ki la їoh ban treikam Sorkar, wat la ka long ha ki kyrdan ba rit, hynrei ki sngewskhem ba ka jingim jong ngi ki khun ka la shngaiῆ bad kim don jingartatien ba kin lah ban bsa, ban pynheh pynsan bad phah shong skul ia ngi.
Ngi їohsngew ki khana ba la їathuh pateng da i mei i pa, i mei nah mei san, ma duh, ma san, pa khynnah, pa san bad ki riewtymmen ba wat naduh shuwa ban їoh la ka jong ka Jylla ki briew Sorkar ki ju leit khot na їing ia kito kiba la nang la stad ban wan trei ha ki kam sorkar kiba lait kyrhai bad byllai bad kiba bun kiwei ruh la khot bad pynshlur ba kin shimti ia ki kam nonghikai skul khnang ban їarap ban tei bad kyntiew ia ki skul bad jingnang jingstad ha ka Jylla. Shibun ruh ki la jubab ia ka jingkhot bad da ka mysiem ba shit rhem ki la trei shitom bad len lade ban buh ka nongrim kaba khlaiῆ na ka bynta ka pule puthi ha ka Jylla. Kumba shi spah snem shuwa ba їoh ia ka Jylla ba pura ki skul Balang ki dei tang ma ki kiba ai jinghikai ha kane ka Ri.
Captain Williamson Sangma
Da ki phew snem shuwa ba ka koit ka khiah bad sumar pang kan kylla long kawei na ki lad kamai spah, ka Jylla ka don ki doctor, ki nurse bad ki nongtrei ka koit ka khiah kiba sumar bad pynkhiah ia baroh ki jait jingpang. Kine ki trei met bad mynsiem bad ki aiti lut їalade na ka bynta ki para briew khamtam eh na ka bynta ki rangli juki. Wat hapdeng ki jingduna kiba bun kim shym tyngkai ia ka por bad ka bor ban shakri ia ki paidbah. Don tang ar tylli ki kynhun kiba shakri ia ki paidbah ka Jylla ha ka liang ka koit ka khiah, kawei ka dei ka Balang Khristan bad kiwei ki Kynhun Jingngeit bad ka Sorkar. Ka Balang te ka la shakri la jan shi spah snem bad kine ki ai jingshakri ia ki paidbah salonsar khlem da peit shilliang khmat bad ka Jylla ka khiah krat. Ka dei kane ka jingsngewthuh ban shakri bad kyntiew ia ki paidbah bad ki policy jong ka Sorkar Jylla ban shakri bad bei tyngka na ka bynta ka bha ka miat ki paidbah salonsar, kaba pynlong ia i mei i pa jong nga ban sngew shngaiῆ bad thikna ka jingim bad ba kin sa lah ban bsa bad pynheh pynsan ia ngi.
Eastern India Tribal Union MDC from Khasi HillsAPHLC MLAs for Assam Assembly
Ha kane ka lyngkhuh snem kaba san phew nga ai burom ia ki nonghikai bad ki nongtrei ka koit ka khiah kiba la len їalade. Ňiuma, kiwei de ki nongїaleh sport, ki nongrwai, ki nongthoh kot, nongthoh kotkhubor, ki riewpyrkhat laitluid, ki nongrep, ki nongsuh juti, ki nongῆiah bus, taxi, ki nongbylla, ki misteri, ki nongshong їew, ki nongtrei їingbriew bad kiwei ki nongtrei kiba trud ka maw ka dieng, kiba tuid ka syep ka snam bad noh synῆiang sha ka їoh ka kot ka Jylla. Hoid ka Jylla Meghalaya ka dei ka Jylla jong ki Hynῆiewtrep bad Achik, hynrei ngim lah ban len ba ki don kiwei ruh ki Jaidbynriew bapher kiba la buhai shnong mynta la palat spah snem bad ngi la їa-imlang, khamtam ha Shillong naduh ba ka la long ka Headquarter jong ka Sorkar Bilat ha ka snem 1866. Kiwei pat ki jaitbynriew rit paid ki la im hangne bad kumta ngi dei ban ῆiewkor ia ki bad ia ka jingnoh synῆiang jong ki ha kaba tei bad pynwandur ia ka Jylla bad imlang sahlang.
Nga pan map namar ba ka jingtip jong nga shaphang ki Garo bad ka jingnoh synῆiang jong ki sha ka jingїaleh ban їoh la ka jong ka Jylla ka jyndong. Hynrei nga tip shai ba ki Garo ruh ki la їashim bynta shitrhem bad noh synῆiang shikatdei ha kane ka bynta bad ma ki ruh ki naduh ki spah snem ba la leit noh ki thrang, ki angnud bad ki їakhun tyngeh ban synshar hi da lade їalade bad ban pynneh, ban pynsah bad kyntiew ia la ka jong ka Jaitbynriew.
Ka Hill Union bad ka Khasi National Dorbar ki dei ki ar tylli ki seng kiba nyngkong eh ki ban phah ia ki dorkhas sha ka States Re organisation Commission ban dawa la ka jong ka Jylla ha u bnai April 1954. Ki Garo hapoh ka jingїalam jong u Captain W.A Sangma ki phah ia ka Telegram ne Kyrwoh kumne, “KI GARO KI KYRSHAN PURA IA KA JINGDAWA JONG KA KHASI NATIONAL DORBAR BAN THAW IA KA JYLLA RI LUM STOP IA KI DAW BA KYRSHAN LA NANG PYNPOI”.
Ha ka jingїalang jong ki District Council ka Jylla Assam kaba la long ha Shillong ha u bnai June 1954, u Captain W.A Sangma, uba long ha kato ka por u Chief Executive Member jong ka Garo Hills District Council u kren shai ba ym don jingartatien ei ei ba ka jingdawa ban їoh la ka jong ka Jylla Ri Lum kaba pura ka long kaba shong nia. U la ong. “ka Sixth schedule kam shym lah ban ai bor ia ki Riewlum ban їada bad kyntiew ia ka kolshor, ka khyndew, ka ktien, ka kamai kajih, ka їoh ka kot jong ki riewlum bad ki don ruh shibun bah ki jingpei thliew bad kaba plie lad ia ki bor na shabar ban tuklar ia ka synshar khadar jong ki riewlum” Nalor nangta sa ka rukom peit poh jong ki jaitbynriew heh paid Assamese bad lada kane ka їai bteng ym don shuh da kawei pat ka lynti lait sa tang ba ki riewlum kin їeng tylli kawei ban dawa jur ban їoh la ka jong ka Jylla ba pura khnang ba kin lah ban їada bad kyntiew ia la ka jaitbynriew, ka ktien ka kolshor, ka khyndew bad kiwei ki dei riti.”
Ha ka bynta jong ka Bri U Hynῆiewtrep ka jingїakhun ban synshar hi da lade їalade kam dei kaba sdang tang naduh ki snem 1950 ne 60, hynrei ka jingїaksaid ban saiῆdur ia ka synshar hi ka la sdang naduh ba la seng ia ka Khasi National Dorbar ha ka 4 tarik September 1923. Ka paw shai ha ka shithi bad notis kaba la pynmih paidbah ha ka 27 July 1923 ia ka jingthmu ban seng ia ka Khasi national Dorbar, “Phi tip mynta ha ka ri India ka don ka jingkhih bad jingїaleh kaba jur ba ki Nong-India hi kin ioh synshar ia la ka Ri. Naduh ka snem 1921 ka jingsynshar ia ka ri India jong ngi da ka Sorkar Bilat ka lah sdang ban kylla. Їa kane ka jingkylla ha ka jingsynshar ki khot ka Reformed Government. Ha kane ka jingsynshar ba la sdang thymmai bun ki Nong-India ki la sdang ban shim ia ki jaka ki Phareng…te ka dei eh ia ngi ban ia kyndit bynriew ban pyrkhat ia la ka ri ha ki jingiadei bad kata ka jingsynshar thymmai kaba la sdang mynta bad ka ban khraw bor artat..Na ka bynta kane ka kam bakhraw ban pyrkhat bad ban thaw lad na ka bynta ban kyntiew ia la ka ri ha la ka jinglong jingim, ha ka jingtip jingnang, ha ka rukom synshar khadar, la їakut ban pynlong ia ka Dorbar jong ka Ri Khasi baroh kawei… ha ki Tarik 4-6 Sepetember 1923”.
Ka jingphohsniew bad jingїakhun ban synshar hi da lade їalade ka їai bteng bad I bah L.L.D Basan jong ka Hill Union i thoh kumne ha ka snem 1954, “Ka jingangnud jong ngi ki riewlum ban synshar hi kan ym jia hapoh ka Jylla Assam namar ka synshar hi ka thew beit ia ka Jylla ba pura hapoh ka Ri India…kam don lynti hapoh ka Sixth Schedule ban їoh ka bor ba pura ban synshar hi namar ba kum kata ka bor ka don ha ka Jylla ba pura…”
Hadien shi snem ba la thaw ia ka Meghalaya, u Prof G.G Swell u la pynbna paitbah ha ka 6 July 1973 ia ki 16 tylli ki mat treikam na ka bynta ka Meghalaya bad u la sam paitbah sha ki riewpyrkhat bad riewpaidbah bad kyntu ia baroh ki nongshong shnong ban їatai halor ki mat ki jura kiba ktah ia ka Jylla kaba don ha ka rta ba dang khyllung ha kato ka por. Ki 16 tylli ki mat ki kdup ia ki subject bapher bad ki ishu kiba їar. Kine ki donkam ban saiῆdur lyngba ki policy bad ki Aiῆ.
Ki 16 tylli ki mat ki kynthup ia ka khyndew, ka rep ka riang, ka їoh ka kot bad kumta ter ter. Ka dei ka jingkitkhlieh jong ka Jylla ban їada bad kyntiew ia ki nongrep ym ban shu їeh noh beiῆ ia ki ha ki nongkhaiї. U Prof G.G Swell u їasaid tyngeh ba ka Sorkar Jylla ka dei ban buhkti bad tuklar ha ka їew jong ki nongrep bad ban їada ia ki nongrep na ka jingshah khῆoit beiῆ bad jingshah shim kabu. Ka Sorkar ka dei ban buh dor ia ki mar rep da kaba thew bad woh bniah ia ka jinglut jingsep ba ki nongrep ki la sei baroh shi snem bad ba ka dor ka mur jong ki mar rep ka dei ban pynїoh nong ia ki nongrep.”
Halor ka khyndew, u Prof G.G Swell u kyrshan ia ka dustur bat khyndew kaba la їoh pateng kum ka ri raij bad khyndew kur. Ha kajuh ka por pat ngi donkam ban pynkhlaiῆ ia kane ka dustur lyngba ki aiῆ khnang ba ki briew kin ym im khlem ka khyndew. U ban jur ba dei ban don ka tnat treikam na ka bynta ban register ia ki dulir khyndew jong ki briew khnang ban pynlait ia ki nongshong shnong na ki jingeh bad ka jingpynsyrwa kai ia ka pisa ha ki mokutduma.
Prof. G. G.Swell
Ha kaba sdang ka Jylla ha ka snem 1972, kata ka per capita income ne kamai kajih ha ka Jylla ka long 327 (lai spah arphew hynῆiew) tyngka bad ka long kaba poh dor palat ha ka Ri baroh kawei. Phewse mynta ruh ha ka jingdap san phew snem ka Jylla Meghalaya ka dang sah kut hajuh bad ka dei kawei na ki san tylli ki Jylla kiba poh dor ha ka kamai kajih. Mynta ka kamai kajih ne ka per capita income ka Jylla Meghalaya ka long tang kumba 95000/ (khyndai phew san hajar) tyngka. Ňiuma, ha ki 16 tylli ki mat u Prof Swell u ban jur ba ka jingthaw ia ka Meghalaya kam dei eh tang na ka bynta ban pynurlong ia ka jingangnud ban synshar hi, hynrei ka dei ruh na ka bynta ban pynlait im ia ki briew na ka jingduk bad ban kyntiew ia ka їoh ka kot jong ki.
Ka Jylla bad ki nongshong shnong kin khih kin ksar, kin angnud bad kin saiῆdur thymmai ia ka lawei. Hynrei kumno pat shaphang ka jinglong ki nongїalam kaba u Prof G.G Swell ruh u la kynthoh tyngeh ha ka snem 1973 kumne, “Lada ia ka jinglong nongїalam la pynpyut noh plak da ki kam sniew, ki kam runar bad la kjap ia ka bor, ka jingkhlaiῆ bad jingkut jingmut, ki prokram (lymne ki aiῆ lymne ki policy) la ki long kiba bha bad tei katno katno ruh kin shu sah kut tang ha ki jingthoh ha ki sla kot.”
This collectively written explanatory note by KAM Meghalaya on the economic crisis of Meghalaya is being shared with the hope that the citizens engage actively in thinking about the economy of our state. We have tried to explain economic terms and statistics rather than assume that the readers have a prior knowledge of those concepts.
INSTAGRAM GOVERNMENT
The Public Relations machinery of the Government of Meghalaya has been extra busy these days. MDA government led by Mr. Conrad Sangma has been badly hit by headlines of alleged corruption in its flagship loan financed government corporation and bad growth numbers. This was looking bad for a government that has replaced policy making with social media posts and paid public relations advertorials in magazines and websites.
Leaving aside The Meghalayan Age Ltd. and its multi-tasking super powerful bureaucrat until more information comes into the public domain, we would look at the bleak economic data for Meghalaya that the Reserve Bank of India has published.
If you are from Meghalaya, the experience of underdevelopment of our state is something for which we don’t have to wait for RBI numbers. Increasing migration of working population from the state, increasing underemployment, falling real wages, and bad nutritional status of the population all point to a failing economy. This is why all hell broke loose recently when a local newspaper put out the RBI data for Compounded Annual Growth Rate of Gross State Domestic Product (2011-2021) for a decade— data that estimated Meghalaya’s growth at approximately at 2%, the slowest in the country.
Screenshot of the Instagram Post
2% or 8.2% – SPINNING THE ECONOMY
The post became so viral that the IT cell of the government went around pasting similar sounding defensive messages on various social media platforms till the government’s own Public Relations department put out an infographic and press release about these RBI numbers and attempted to spin the bad news.
Screenshot of MyMeg Instagram response to RBI Data
Apart from the fact Mr. Conrad Sangma is badly photoshopped in the picture – the infographic itself is full of intentional mistakes to confuse the citizens. What is 8.2% Economic growth? Is it for the year 2020-21 or of 2021-21? Is Meghalaya going from Better to Best in GSDP? Has Meghalaya’s growth rate jumped to 19th rank in India in 2018-21 from being last in the period of 2011-18?
If all this does not confuse you then the detailed press release will confuse you further.
Screenshot of official Press Release of Government of Meghalaya
We are sure Mark Twain had Meghalaya government in mind when he quipped
“There are three kinds of lies – Lie, White Lie and Statistics.”
Because our ruling elite believes that the common citizens do not necessarily engage with the abstruse world of economics and finance that they come up with such statistical sleight of hand to sow PR confusion in our public discourse.
So, what are these numbers? And what do they signify? What do these terms like GSDP, CAGR mean? Before we can unmask the number magic, let us try to understand some basic economic terms.
GDP/GSDP
Gross (State) Domestic Product (GDP/GSDP) is a measure in monetary terms. It indicates the total volume of all finished goods and services produced during a given period of time, usually a year, within the geographical boundaries of the country and the state. GDP is for the whole country, GSDP is for the state. GSDP provides a basic economic profile of the state and estimates the size of an economy and its growth rate.
This data is published annually by the government as well as the Reserve Bank of India. But if you look at the data you would find that there are two different tables, both carrying the same title of Gross State Domestic Product, one saying Gross State Domestic Product at Current Prices and other saying Gross State Domestic Product at Constant prices. Now why this confusion?
From RBI’s Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy
Let us consider a packet of chips. Five years ago, this chips packet, with a given number of chips made with the same unhealthy ingredients cost you ten rupees. you pay 20 rupees for the exact same product. Does it mean that the value of the same packet has gone up? Obviously not. What has happened is price rise or what economists call inflation.
So, the actual value of Gross State Domestic Product in a year can only be compared when we adjust the value for inflation. GSDP without taking into account inflation is called nominal GSDP or GSDP at Current Prices and when we adjust it for inflation, we call it Real GSDP or GSDP at Constant Prices. Constant Price is calculated according to the base year of 2011-2012 meaning comparing the price of goods and services now with the price of goods and services in 2011-12.
Let’s say the state had a nominal GSDP of 100 crores in 2012. By 2022, its nominal GSDP grew to Rs. 150 crores. But prices during this period also rose by 100% (10 rupees chips packet now cost Rs. 20). In this example, if you looked solely at its nominal GSDP, the country’s economy appears to be performing well. However, the real GSDP (expressed in 2012 rupees) would only be 75 crore rupees, revealing that there is an overall decline in real economic performance. Therefore, Real GSDP is a better method for expressing long-term economic performance. Let us look at Meghalaya’s GSDP, nominal and real in 2021-22
Nominal Rs.3,78,30,11,00,000 Real Rs.2,56,96,82,00,000
MYSTERIES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
Economic Growth is by how much percentage our Domestic Product has grown between two time periods, usually a year. The most basic measurement is the annual growth rate. 8.2% that government claims that our economy has grown between 2021-22 is this number. So how did they calculate it?
In 2021 our GSDP at constant prices was Rs. 2375066 lakhs. In 2022 that became Rs. 2569682 lakhs, and so we can say that our economy grew by Rs. 194616lakhs. We are a small state with a small population, so our GSDP in absolute terms would be quite small compared to a big state like Maharashtra. This is why it is easier to compare growth across states or nations by percentages, rather than simply saying our economy grew by Rs. 194616 lakhs. Subtract GSDP of 2021 from GSDP in 2022 and divide the result by GSDP of 2021 and multiply it by hundred. And that is where 8.2% comes from.
8.2% is an impressive figure till we realise that we are comparing a non-covid year with covid years of 2020-21. Because of the disruptions to economic activity by CoVID19 the GSDP would have been low in 2021, so your rate of growth can seem more impressive. A better way to understand whether are doing well economically would be to compare our economic growth with other states in the same period. This year out of 33 States and Union territories only 21 states and Union territories reported their GSDP so the honour list looks something like this like this.
Table 1 Annual Growth Rate of Indian states 2021-2022
When you look at the list like this then the annual growth rate of 8.2% for the period 2021-22 starts looking average, even Bihar of BIMARU states has a higher growth rate at 11%. And what the press release and My Meg Instagram infographic doesn’t tell you is that all the states from Northeast that reported their GSDP are doing better than us.
Having understood the basic terms of economic analysis, we can now be much better placed to read the Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) reports for ourselves— rather than rely on government’s spin and propaganda. It is to this we will turn now.
CAGR OR LONG TERM GROWTH RATE
In the first part of this series, we explained the disparity between the MDA government’s optimistic report of Meghalaya’s economic performance in recent years against the reports of institutions such as the RBI, which suggest a far more dismal picture. While the RBI analysis indicates that Meghalaya is one of the slowest growing states in India, the government machinery has been hyping a figure of 8.2% growth over the last year! As we explained in the first part of this series, however, this is the growth rate for this year only. And this annual growth rate can fluctuate in different years. For example, if one particular year you took a massive loan, the GSDP can jump up substantially and if you were Meghalaya government you would pick and choose that year to show that our growth rate is impressive.
Anyway, economic growth needs to be seen in a longer term to know whether our economy is growing steadily or not growing at all. That where the idea of Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) comes in. It takes a period of usually a decade and averages out various annual growth rates. It is in CAGR that we can see a more holistic view of economic growth. CAGR is calculated by using this formula
where: EV = Ending Value BV= Beginning Value n = Number of Years
To calculate the CAGR of State Domestic Product:
Divide the value of State Domestic Product at the end of the period by its value at the beginning of that period.
Raise the result to an exponent of one divided by the number of years.
Subtract one from the subsequent result.
Multiply by 100 to convert the answer into a percentage.
We have done the calculation for all the states of India based on the data released by the Reserve Bank of India.
Table 3 Compounded Annual Growth Rate for the Decade 2011-2021. Calculated from the data released by the Reserve Bank of India
Meghalaya is last. Our CAGR over the last 10 years is dismal 1.8% and this period includes governments of both Dr. Mukul Sangma and Conrad Sangma. This dismal growth rate points to serious structural issues with economy and economic policy in Meghalaya. And on this we will offer some comments at the end of this essay. But let us get back to the PR.
To score a petty political point, the MDA press release splits the CAGR for the Dr. Mukul (2011-18) period and the Conrad Sangma period (2018-22). It claims that,
“As per the RBI released data on GSDP of states, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) for Meghalaya’s GSDP during 2011-12 to 2017-18 was 2%, which was the lowest among all the States/UTs of India. However, the State grew at a faster rate during 2018-19 to 2020-21, with an impressive jump of 13 places nationally.”
This comparison is purely an electoral point and makes no economic sense. But let us see whether even this claim stands up to economic analysis. If we split the data in this periodisation two CAGRs. emerge. During 2011-2018 the average growth rate of GSDP at constant prices is 1.8% while in MDA period of 2018-21 the same CAGR drops to 0.05%. So,
1. Yes, it is true that during Dr. Mukul’s time in 2011-2018, Meghalaya had the lowest CAGR of 1.8%. For comparison, Mizoram had the highest CAGR of 10.7% in the whole country. We were 33rd out 33 states and Union Territories.
2. It is also true that during the 3-year period of MDA rule (2018-2021) Meghalaya climbed up by 12 places (not 19 places) to be 19th out of 31 states and union territories but the CAGR itself dropped for Meghalaya to half a percent.
So what do you prefer: jump in national ranking or decline in the growth rate? Our political bureaucratic class gives us no choice at all. It is either the devil or the deep sea.
SO, SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THE GROWTH RATE?
Imagine a child of yours. Doctors tell us that children grow in height till they are sixteen or seventeen. Now if the child stops growing before that or is growing very slowly, we would get worried and take the child to the doctor.
Meghalaya’s economy if we go by the data is like that Child that has almost stopped growing. And that means that Meghalaya will step into its economic adulthood stunted, weak and with health deficiencies. We would need some serious medical (policy) intervention. But before we can start talking about this intervention, we need to look at one more piece of bad news.
BAD NEWS THAT PR MACHINE IGNORES (AND WE IGNORE IT TOO)
The per-capita GSDP shows how much economic production value can be attributed to each individual citizen. In simple words, it shows how prosperous citizens of a state are. The RBI report also talks of Net State Domestic Product. To understand the difference between Gross & Net, let us say you bought a scooter for 30000 rupees last year. Now the value of the scooter will depreciate with time. Perhaps it depreciated by 10000 rupees this year, and the net value of the scooter now is 20000 rupees. The same principle applies to State Domestic Product, we simply adjust the GSDP by subtracting the depreciation of all capital investment to arrive at NSDP. And if we divide the NSDP by the population of the state we get Per Capita NSDP. This shows how much income each person in our state has, atleast notionally.
And if we see the CAGR of per capita Net State Domestic Product for India, you realise how dire the situation is for us.
Table 4 Compounded Annual Growth Rate of Per Capita Net State Domestic Product at Constant Prices for the decade 2011-2021 calculated from the data released by Reserve Bank of India
If you want to see how special Meghalaya is just see the chart, we are the only state whose Growth Rate of Per Capita Income is below the zero.
Meghalaya is the only state in the country which has a negative CAGR of per capita income (-0.5%). People in our state are seeing a decline in their income over the last ten years. We are getting poorer in absolute terms by the year. And getting poorer is the situation both in Dr. Mukul’s times and in Conrad Sangma’s times. One of the reasons for this negative per capita income is obviously Meghalaya’s booming population but another is crossing the Rubicon into the Lamborghini capture of its economic life.
Just to understand this look at the value of Per Capita Income at Constant Prices for Meghalaya for the last ten years. For comparison, let us look at Per Capita Income of India and Sikkim, a state with which we share similar geographical and region locations. What you immediately notice is that our Per Capita Income is lower than National per Capita income and approximately one fifth of Sikkim’s per capita income. People of Sikkim at least by numbers are almost five times richer than us.
Table 5 Per Capita Income (Net State Domestic Product) at Constant Prices for the Decade for Meghalaya, Sikkim and India (Source: Reserve Bank of India)
And yet, in spite of dismal economic data, we have a small minority of Meghalayans who buy Lamborghinis and SUVs, erect gleaming glass fronted buildings, have swimming pools, watch world cup matches in Qatar, do their Christmas shopping in Dubai. Though the economic pie is very small for Meghalaya, a substantial section of it is grabbed its small ruling elite leaving crumbs for its working people. Just ask working people about the number of people in the family who have have to work to sustain themselves and the story of family poverty strikes you hard. And the data corroborates that. If we look at the Multidimensional Poverty Index for the states, we find that one third of our population (32.8%) is poor and experiences deprivation. So extreme inequality is at the very heart of the economic life of Meghalaya. That is why more young people are leaving the state for work, more children are getting stunted, more young people are dropping out of education, and more criminal activities like drug peddling are eating our everyday life.
So, what to make of this claim in the Press Release by the government
“The strong growth of Meghalaya can be attributed to the increase in government expenditure. Since 2018, the State government expenditure has doubled from Rs. 9,858 Cr in 2017-18 to Rs. 18,881 in 2022-23. An exponential increase in expenditure by almost 50% and large-scale investments taking place, have led the State to record an impressive growth and put the state on the national development pedestal.”
Obviously by now it must be clear to you that the Strong Growth that the press release is claiming should be taken with a fistful of salt. But the next claim of the rise in government expenditure needs to be unpacked. Much of this expenditure is being debt financed. If you remember that in the statement issued by the government about the controversy around The Meghalayan Age Ltd. talked about the loan of Rs 632 crores from the New Development Bank (NDB). Add the ADB loan to the World Bank loan and market borrowings— and this exponential increase vanishes into the thin air.
But much more worrying is the nature of this government expenditure. Quite a lot of this expenditure is going towards unplanned cash transfers that seem to have no long-term capital formation plans. So, one may have increased the government expenditure by 50% but the expenditure itself is plagued by short termism, wastefulness and unaccountable rent seeking behaviour by its political, bureaucratic class and its foot soldiers. Rent seeking is a nice sounding economics phrase for high level corruption and extortion.
In our rural areas small peasants are getting dispossessed of their land by a powerful indigenous class for illegal extractive economy and the persistence of rent seeking behaviour of its political, bureaucratic and their foot soldiers. Agricultural income is depressed because of the control of markets by the middlemen. Nothing in the economy seems to move without palms being greased. This High Level thrives with its control of street level petty extortion, government contracts, and check gate control, which is facilitated by its foot soldiers. This means that there is no private investment and in spite of the tall claims about the government expenditure and investment, it is clear that a lot of this expenditure lines the pockets of the powerful.
The recent story of stalled bypass roads because of extortionate cuts is revealing. The project cost would have been accounted for in the claims about 50% increase in government expenditure. The stalling, cuts, and lack of quality control, however, is not factored into the bureaucratic PR spin of the government.
But our MLAs and prospective MLAs are excitedly distributing one-time doles rather than working and thinking of policies that shall increase our growth rate and increase per capita income in a way that creates more employment and sustainable amenities and infrastructure for all so that citizens don’t have to be desperate for the doles from the politicians. Maybe that’s why politicians do not think of economic policies because they want working people to be their slaves. If we don’t want to live our lives precariously, we need to make the economy work for the people.
What makes us sad (and also worried) that the political parties of all hues do not seem to be addressing the fundamental issue of our everyday life that is economy. It is economy that feeds us, gives us jobs, educates us, looks after us. And yet the issues that they are flagging seem to exist in a vacuum where the economic crisis of Meghalaya that stares us does not exist. Can we at least start thinking about the economic implications of the various ideas that political parties seem to be floating. From ILP to Transport to Direct Benefit Transfers, Unemployment and Reservation Policy, Bifurcation of State and various others. How will the policy impact the economy? Will it pull us out of the economic dump we find ourselves in? How will it impact the one third of its poor working population that Meghalaya has? What about the family health and education expenditure? Capital formation? Illegal and grey economy? Inequality of wealth? Landlessness? How will they impact the job creation and real wages? Can Agriculture be revived? We can go on but you get the idea what we are driving at.
If we don’t ask these questions and provide sustainable policy responses to them, we are looking at a Meghalaya that is experiencing net outflow of young working population, declining health indicators, increasing hunger, expanding crime networks, drugs and violence eating our young generation…
<This is first in a series of essays about the vexed question of language and Khasi ethnic identity. Is there one Khasi language? Will Khasi identity be weakened if multiplicity of tongues exist? If you want to wade into this debate, please send your contribution to raiotwebzine@gmail.com>
The Chief Minister of Meghalaya, Conrad Sangma, recently released the state anthem in Tura, which generated a fair bit of controversy. One of the criticisms about the anthem was made by the Jaintia Students’ Union, wherein they demanded corrections be made to the anthem by removing the English words and replacing them with Jaintia. However, is this justified demand? Also, why only Jaintia? What about the inclusion of the Maram, Lyngngam, War, and Bhoi languages into the anthem? What about the dialects within those groups? We also have to remember that the Khasi dialect that is used in the anthem is from Sohra, but among the Khynriam (identified with the group found in present-day East Khasi Hills and West Khasi Hills), there are many other dialects. Should all those dialects also be included in the anthem? Are there “three” indigenous people groups in Meghalaya, or are there actually seven (six from the Khasi and one from Garo, since I am not aware of the latter’s sub-group dynamics)? Finally, why is this question important, and what are its implications?
An argument for the special mention of Jaintia as a group separate from the Khasi is the fact that there are three autonomous district councils: Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills, and Garo Hills, which represent the three different groups. But these are administrative arrangements created in modern times. In the past, there were political entities like the Jaintia kingdom and the various Himas, with Hima Nongkhlaw being an important one from which Tirot Singh came. Does that mean that Nongkhlaw is also actually a separate ethnic group like the Jaintia? Also, accepting modern administrative arrangements as a criterion for classifying ethnic groups would suggest that the unified Khasi-Jaintia identity is a modern construction and is not authentic. However, is that true?
One argument always made about the unity of the six groups (one lost) that today make up the Khasi is their origin story. According to this legend, there were sixteen families who, though they lived in heaven, would come down to earth to cultivate the land. One day, seven families came down but were unable to return because the tree that connected heaven and earth had been cut down. These marooned seven families became the “Ki Hinniew Skum” (the seven nests, or the seven roots). They are also known as the “Ki Hynniew trep” (the seven huts), who are today identified with the seven groups, viz., Khynriam, War, Bhoi, Jaintia, Maram, Lyngngam, and Diko (the lost group), that make up the Khasi. Now this story has been found to have first appeared in written form in Mrs. Rafy’s book ‘Folktales of the Khasis’ published in 1920. Before that, parts of the story about the tree connecting heaven and earth were also mentioned in the 1907 book ‘The Khasi’ by PRT Gurdon. Curiously, the story of the seven groups was not mentioned.
Although the origin story of the seven families was not mentioned, the groups identified with those families did find mention in Gurdon’s book. The War of the Southern Hills was mentioned, as were the Pnar/Synteng (Jaintia) of Jowai, Lynngam staying adjacent to the Garos, and Bhoi to the north, many of whom were identified as actually being the Karbi. The Maram were not mentioned, and the Khynriam were actually called the Khasi, found to be staying in the “central high plateau, Cherra and Nongstoin, Maharam, Mario, Nongkhlaw, and the neighbouring Siemships.” This is one of the reasons why some have suggested that the Jaintia do not prefer the term Khasi since it refers to the Khynriam. Therefore, a term that has been proposed is Hynniewtrep after the origin story. But what is also to be remembered is that in the same book, Gurdon himself mentioned that all the groups mentioned above were part of the “Khasi nation” (page xix). At another place, he stated that “these divisions represent collections of people inhabiting several tracts of (Khasi) country and speaking dialects which, although often deriving their origin from the Khasi roots, are frequently so dissimilar to the standard language as to be almost unrecognizable”.
The story of the seven families was mentioned in Rafy’s book, but not the names of the seven families identified today with the seven sub-groups. Some of the present groups have been mentioned in Gurdon’s book (which was earlier), but not the origin story. Does it mean that the origin story and the connection between the different ‘Khasi’ groups were invented in the intervening thirteen years (between the publications of the two books) by politically conscious Khasis or most astoundingly by the British? The former suggests a very high degree of inventiveness and innovativeness by the Khasis, who created an entire mythology connecting different groups immediately after coming into contact with the British. The latter, on the other hand, implies that the British created a new group called the Khasi, taking all the groups mentioned in the book earlier by Gurdon, but at the same time making sure that they did not mix with the Garo, whom they kept separate. In fact, Major A. Playfair, Deputy Commissioner of Eastern Bengal and Assam, brought out his own book on the Garos in 1909. Did the British do this because they knew that more than 100 years from now, there will be those who will be arguing that the Khasi and Jaintia are separate groups? At that moment, they would need to remind people they were the same. It seems the British had the ability to see the future and make plans accordingly. Or is there a less convoluted explanation?
Even before the arrival of the British, the groups that make up what is known today as the Khasi (which includes the Jaintia) always had the sense that they were a single people. This derives from stories like the origin myth, which was a combination of a group who, over time, settled in different parts of what is today known as Meghalaya (particularly the eastern part), becoming identified with specific geographic locations, which could be the initial criterion for differentiation. This later got ossified into a restrictive ethnic category where lineages became the defining criterion rather than location. But in the end, they are part of the same group, connected to each other. Work done in recent years actually proves these connections to be true.
Linguistically, the language spoken by the different sub-groups, i.e., Khynriam, War, Bhoi, Jaintia, Maram, and Lyngngam, is considered to be part of the Mon-Khmer branch and has no connection with any other languages outside groups that are known to be part of the Khasi group. Their closest cousin is the Munda, who belong to the larger Austroasiatic language family. Recent studies have confirmed what was known from linguistics: that the Khasis and the Mundas also share a genetic link. Coming back to the Khasi, this connection between linguistics and genetics was most interestingly confirmed in the case of the Lyngngam.
From their appearance, dress, and certain cultural habits, the Lyngngam resemble the Garo. In fact, according to Gurdon, they were a mixture between the Khasi and the Garo. However, it has also been mentioned in the book that the Lyngngam insisted that they were Khasi and not Garo. This has indeed been found to be the case. According to the 2012 paper ‘Molecular Genetic Perspectives on the Origin of the Lyngngam Tribe of Meghalaya, India’ Banrida T. Langstieh and her colleagues came to the conclusion that the female lineages of the Lyngngam came from the other Khasi groups, most probably the Nongtrai group found in West Khasi Hills, who are the nearest. In short, the Lyngngam are part of the Khasi group.
Regarding the Bhoi, who were described as mostly Karbi by Gurdon, Philippe Ramirez’s 2014 book ‘People of the Margins: Across Ethnic Boundaries in North-East India’ mentions a peculiar phenomenon of equivalence of surname. Members from the different ethnic communities (Khasi and Karbi) in Ri Bhoi are found to share membership in more than one ethnic group. A surname among the Bhoi-Khasi is found to have an equivalent among the Karbi. This is because sometime in the past, a lot of the Karbi assimilated into the Khasi but kept cognizance of their original clan so that they would not commit any incest in the future (i.e., not marry within the same equivalent clan). The Khasis must have welcomed this because it would have increased their numbers, which, like in the past and even now, is a very important strategy to increase the strength and bargaining power of a group.
So, it has become clear that the books written by Gurdon and Mrs. Rafy were accurate in their description of the Khasi and the unity of the different groups that make up the larger group today. The stress on the books by outsiders like the British officers (I haven’t found out who Mrs. Rafy was, but most probably she must have been the wife of a British officer) is for objectivity. This, of course, has also to be confirmed by testimonies from within the community. In this regard the 2018 article ‘Ïawchibidi: the Pan-Jaidbynriew Clan’ by H.H. Mohrmen is very illuminating. In this piece, he talks about the clan stories, especially those of the ‘ka Ïawchibidi’, the progenitor (Seinjeit/Ïawbei) of Laloo, Pyrbot, Lamin (clans in the Jaintia Hills), Diengdoh, Pariong, and Syngngai (clans in the Khasi Hills). Those well versed in the history of the other clans will, undoubtedly, have similar examples.
So, whether it’s from inside or outside sources, it is clear that the various groups that are today known as the Khasi (which include the Jaintia) are a single people and have always known themselves to be so for a very long time. This identity is not a recent construction conjured up for political purposes. However, it has to be accepted that groups like the Jaintia might feel left out since the language used in the anthem belongs to the Sohra dialect, which is part of the Khynriam group. The reason for its use as the standard Khasi, though, is pure chance. If the British had established headquarters in Jowai, the anthem today would have had Jaintia words instead. Then it would be the non-Jaintias who would be complaining about being left out.
Personally, though, the more sinister danger is that any divisions that might seem trivial today might become a large fissure tomorrow, which would have devastating consequences for the community. The groups that make up the Kuki-Chin are a linguistically and culturally homogenous group. But there have been violent clashes between the different groups with deadly consequences less than thirty years ago. This has been a feature of the Nagas as well. I know things are not that bad, but if you give enough time and create enough dissension, anything can happen in the future. Recently, the former Lok Sabha Speaker, Kariya Munda, asserted that “those tribals who convert to Islam or Christianity must not get any benefits of reservation meant for the tribals.” This is nothing but an attempt to create hostility between groups that have converted and those that are still practicing their indigenous faith by giving the impression that only the latter are genuinely indigenous (and thus taking away the indigenous status of those who converted). Of course, such thinking stems from a lack of understanding or willful obfuscation of what the term ‘indigenous’ means. Maybe this can be discussed in more detail in the future.
Khasi is a composite identity made up of the different sub-groups, which include the Jaintia, that are linguistically, genetically, and culturally similar. There are local variations, no doubt, but that’s understandable given that the community is spread out and occupies different locations, which has given rise to regional differences. Such a phenomenon is not unique to the Khasi, as other ethnic groups around the world also experience it. Khasi also include the different non-Khasi groups, viz., Karbi, Garo, and non-tribal, i.e., Dkhar (with the numerous Khar prefixes in the surnames), who have assimilated into it over time, boosting its number and enriching its culture. But there is no doubt that Khasi is a community that has been aware of its unity for a very long time, as told through their origin legend and the clans that cut across the present-day administrative divisions. Recent studies in anthropology, linguistics, and genetics have also confirmed this. While the sub-groups that make up the larger identity of the Khasi should not be made to feel left out (not only the Jaintia), that cannot be allowed to create divisions, which will be harmful in the long run. The people who for long were one should not become divided, not by those from within and not at the behest of those from the outside.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organization or institution)
Ka jingïakren ïasuk hapdeng ka Sorkar India bad ki seng kieng atiar ka thañ shatei lam mihngi ka Ri India, kum ka NSCN (IM), ULFA bad khamtam bad ka Hynñiewtrep Liberation Council (HNLC), ka donkam ia ka jingïatai paidbah kaba sani. Ka paw ba kine ki seng ki la kubur ban ïakren hapoh ki kyndon jong ka Riti Synshar ka Ri India. Kumta ha ka jingrakhe ia ka Republic Day to ngin ia thir nia halor ka jingïadei ka Ri Hynñiewtrep bad ka Ri India.
Ka Constitution jong ka Ri India kam dei kaba shu hap kum ka mana na bneng, hynrei ka dei kaba mih na ki jingïatai nia bad jingpynwandur da ki nongmihkhmat na ki thaiñ, ki kynhun bad jaitbynriew bapher kiba pynlong ia ka Ri India. Naduh ba la plie ia jingshong Dorbar ha ka 9 Nohprah 1946, ka Constituent Assembly ka la ïakynduh bad ïashong dorbar haduh lai snem lynter naduh 1946 haduh 1949. Ki nongmihkhmat ki la ïatai sani, ki la prat jingmut bad da ka jingstad bad jingshem phang jong ki, ki la pynurlong ia ki jingangnud jong ki kynhun, ki jaitbynriew bapher bad khamtam eh jong ki rit paid bad ki trai muluk. Ïa ka Constitution ka Ri India la pdiang ha ka 29 Naiwieng 1949 bud sa ka jingpynbna ia ka Ri India kum ka Republic ha ka 26 Kylla Lyngkot 1950. Ha ka Constitution la bsuh ruh ia ki nongrim tynrai jong ka hok, ka jingshisha, ka jingïalong mar ryngkat, jingïaburom kylliang bad jinglaitluid. Wat la ka long ka Kot aiñ bad ka Kitab Synshar kaba khraw, kam long pat kaba janai bad ka don hi hangne ki thliew ki syar bad ki jingduna kiba dang dei ban pyndap. Ha kane ka juk jong ka jingkhie rasong ki riewshitniam, ki riewshit jaitbynriew kiba kwah ban synshar donbor tang kawei ka niam, kawei ka kolshor bad kawei ka ktien, ma ngi ki nongshong shnong ngi dei ban ïengskhem bad ïeng tylli kawei ban ïada ia ka Constitution jong ka Ri bad ia ki nongrim tynrai jong ka.
Ka Constitution ka Ri India kam dei tang ka Kitab Synshar, hynrei ka dei ka Soskular kaba la ïateh hapdeng ka Sorkar India bad ki Seng, ki Kynhun bad Jaitbynriew bapher kiba pynlong ia ka Ri India bakhraw. Hapdeng u Nohprah 1947 bad Lber 1948, haba ki Khasi State ki la soi ia ka Instrument of Accession, la kular ia ki paid ka Ri Hynñiewtrep ban pynïoh ia ka hok bad jinglaitluid ban synshar hi da lade ïalade katkum ba la maitphang ha ka Annexed Agreement. La khmih lynti ba ka Sorkar India kan burom ia ka Soskular bad pynurlong ia ki kyndon hapoh ka por ba la buh. Phewse, kam shym la long kumta bad ia ki Khasi State kiba laitluid ha kato ka por la pynrung jubor hapoh ka Jylla Assam bad katkum ka First Schedule jong ka Constitution la ong, “Ka Jylla Assam kan kynthup ia ki jaka, kiba shuwa ka jingpyntreikam ia kane ka Constitution, kiba hap hapoh ka Jylla Assam, ki Khasi State bad ki Tribal area.” U Professor S. K Chaube u ong ba kane ka dei ka “Act of State” bad ka long pyrshah ia ka mon jong ki Khasi State ba la pynrung hapoh ka Jylla Assam hadien ba la pyntreikam ia ka Constitution.
Tat haduh 1949, ki Hima Khasi hapoh ka shatri jong ka Federation of Khasi States, ki la ïakhun ban wanrah ia ka Ri Khasi hapoh kawei ka rukom synshar, wat la ka don ka jingïaphnieng bad jingïapher jingmut jong ki seng, kum ka Federation of Khasi States bad ka Khasi-Jaiñtia Federated State National Conference. Ka Khasi-Jaiñtia Federated State National Conference ka dei ka kynhun kaba kwah ia ka Sixth Schedule bad hapoh ka jingïalam jong u Rev J.J.M Nichols Roy, uba long ruh u dkhot jong ka Constituent Assembly na Assam, la pynhiar kyrdan ia ki Khasi State sha ka Sixth Schedule kaba long ruh pyrshah ia ka rai jong ka Khasi States Constitution Making Durbar kaba la long ha ki bnai April haduh July 1949.
Kumba la kdew ha ka kot, Ka Ri Hynñiewtrep Shuwa bad Hadien Ka “Independence Day”, lah ban shem ia ka tynrai jong ka jingïapyrshah naduh ka snem 1948 ha ka por ba u Rev J.J.M Nichols Roy u la wanrah ia ka jingtyrwa ban bsuh ia ka kyndon ha ka Article 190 kumne- “Nalor kata wat lada la ong ei ei ha ka Article 225, u Governor ka Assam u lah da ka jingpynbna paidbah ban hukum ia kano kano ka bynta jong ki Hima ban pynïaid noh kumba long hi ka bynta jong ka Autonomous District ha Ri Khasi- Jaiñtia kumba la kdew ha ka Part I jong ka Table kaba la pyndait lang ha ka paragraph ba 19 jong kata ka Schedule…” Ha kawei ka liang, ka Artilce 225 jong ka Draft Constitution ka ai bor ia ka Parliament ban thaw aiñ halor ki State ne ka kynhun jong ki State ne Hima kiba don ha ka Part III jong ka First Schedule, tang katkum ki kyndon kiba don ha ka Soskular kaba la ïasoi hapdeng ki State ne kynhun jong ki State bad ka Sorkar India.
Ka Federation of Khasi States ka la ïeng pyrshah ia kane ka jingtyrwa bad mar dor ka la phah ia ka shithi sha New Delhi ban pyntip ia ka rai jong ka bad ka la kyntu jur ia u Mr Guha, uba long ha kata ka por u nongmihkhmat jong ki Khasi State ha Constituent Assembly bad la bthah ia u ba un pyrshah bad buh ha khmat ka Dorbar ia ka rai jong ki Khasi State. Kham hadien u Professor G.G Swell u la pynshai ia ka rai jong ki Hima Khasi kumne, “ka jingpyrshah ia ka jingpynrung ia ki Hima Khasi hapoh ka District Council ka long halor ka nongrim ba kane kan pynhap ia ki Khasi State hapoh ka jingsynshar ka Sorkar Assam bad ba ki Hima Khasi kin hap noh hapoh ka Jylla Assam. Ngi pyrkhat ba lada ngi lah ban pynneh shuwa ia ki Khasi State kumba ki long, kan ïarap bad pynsuk ban ïoh la ka jong ka Jylla. Ka jingpyrshang jong ngi ka la shu bijai ei wat la ngi don ia ka jingbun paid ha ka Dorbar Thaw Riti jong ki Hima Khasi…kaba phylla pat ka long ba ïa kane ka Dorbar la shu pynkut kynsan khlem daw.” Ka jingpynbna kynsan jong ka HNLC ba ka la weng na ka jingïakren ïasuk bad ki Sorkar ka pynkhie im biang ban plied ia ki kitab history jong ka synshar khadar ha ka Ri Hynñiewtrep. Ka long kaba shisha ba ngin ym lah ban wanrah ia ka jingïamynjur lang hapdeng ka Sorkar India, Sorkar Meghalaya bad HNLC lada ngi leh klet ia ka history. Ñiuma, ki jingtip shaphang ka Seng HNLC, la ka long ka saiñpyrkhar lane ka rukom treikam jong ka, ki duna than eh. Hynrei ha ka jingjurip kaba la leh kumba ar phew snem mynshuwa la shem ba 40% ki samla wadkam bad 25% ki samla pule ki pynpaw ba ka Ri Hynñiewtrep ka dei ban laitluid na ka India, katba kiba bun balang pat ki pynpaw ba dei ban ai ha ki Hima Khasi ia ka hok, ka iktiar bad ka kyrdan hapoh ka Constitution ka Ri India. Lah ban kdew hangne, “Ha ka snem 1992 ka Khasi Students’ Union ka la pynim ia ka jingdawa ba dei ban pynïoh ia ka hok jong ki Hima Khasi da kaba pynrung ia ki kyndon hapoh ka Constitution…” Ka HNLC ruh ka la ïakhun halor kane ka mat bad ka kwah ba ka Ri Hynñiewtrep kan laitluid na ka Ri India. Ka HNLC ka sngew ba ka jingïakhun da ka thma ka long kaba kongsan khnang ban ïoh ia ki jingdawa bad jinglaitluid. Kumta ha ka jingïaleh jong ka, ka la shah kynnoh ruh ba ka la donkti ha kaba pynïap ia ki pulit, ki suba nongsyntiat bad kiwei kiba lui lui. Kumjuh ruh ka la shah kynnoh ba ka donkti ha kaba lute bad rahbor ia ki briew. Ha ka snem 2000 ka Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) jong ka Sorkar India ka la ñiew be-aiñ ia ka HNLC katkum ki kyndon jong ka Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) 1967. La bteng ia ka jingkheiñ be-aiñ bad sa shisien ha ka snem 2019 ka MHA ka la ñiew be-aiñ biang ia ka HNLC halor ki nongrim ba ka dei ka seng kaba ïakhun thma ban laitluid na ka Ri India bad ba ka long ka jingma ia ka Ri bad ba ki kam jong ka ki ktah ia ka shongsuk shongshngaiñ ka thaiñ baroh kawei. Ki nongïalam bad ki dkhot jong ka HNLC ki la shah pynngat ha ki kyndon aiñ IPC bad UAPA. Ki la shah khot hajir ban shah tohkit bad shah tian bishar sha Ïingshari.
Naduh ka snem 2004, ka la don ka jingpyrshang ban wanrah ia ka HNLC sha ka miej jong ka jingïakren ïasuk. Ki seng, ki kynhun niam, ki riewshimet bad ki Sorkar ki la phah ktien bad kyntu ia ki nongïalam jong ka HNLC ban wan sha ka jingïakren ïasuk khnang ban pynkut ia ki kam pyntriem baroh, ban ïamynjur bad pynbeit noh ia ki jingdawa. Ha kane hi ka snem, ka MHA jong ka Sorkar India ka la phah ktien lyngba U Rev P.B.M Basaïawmoit sha ka HNLC, hynrei kine ki jingpyrshang ki khlem sei soh ei ei ruh em. Dei tat haduh ka snem 2022 ba ka HNLC ka la mynjur ban phah ia san ngut ki dkhot jong ka hapoh ka jingïalam jong u Vice Chairman ban sdang ia ka jingïakren bad ki Sorkar.
La sngewthuh ba haba ka HNLC ka wan sha ka miej jingïakren ka la ban jur bad dawa na ka Sorkar ba ka dei ban pyndam noh ia ki jingujor pyrshah ia ki nongïalam bad ki dkhot jong ka. Ban pynthikna ba ki dkhot bad nongïalam ki ïoh ban rung bad mih laitluid hapoh ka Ri khlem ki jingteh kyndon ne jingsyier. Lah ban ong ba kine ki dei ki lad kiba lah ban wanrah ia ka jingshaniah hapdeng ki kynhun kiba ïadon bynta ha ka jingïakren ïasuk. Lehse, shabar na ka kamra ïakren ïasuk pat ki lah ruh ban don kiba sngew khohñioh bad ba ka HNLC ruh ka hap ban jubab shibun ki jingkylli halor ka jingshah kynnoh ba ka thombor, ka pynïap, pynmynsaw bad rahbor ia ki para nongshong shnong bad khamtam ia kiba lui lui.
Toi, ka Jylla, ka Ri bad imlang sahlang ki donkam mar dor ia ka jingsuk bad ka jingbishar hok. Ka long ruh kaba kongsan ba ki Sorkar bad ka HNLC kin poi noh sha ka jingmynjur bad jingpynbeit ia ki jingdawa. Ha kajuh ka por, kum u nongshong shnong nga kyrpad jur ia ka HNLC ba kan wan phai biang sha ka miej jingïakren ïasuk bad ki Sorkar. Nga kwah ruh ban buh hakhmat ia kine ki mat- (i) Ba ka HNLC kan ïasam lang ia ka saiñdur ba ka don na ka bynta ka lawei jong ka Ri Hynñiewtrep bad ban plie lad ia ka jingïatai paidbah (ii) ban thaw ia ka Kynhun jong ki tymmen ki san khnang ban thawlad ia ki riewpaidbah kiba la long ki langkñia ha ka jingïaumsnam ba kin tip ia ki jingshisha baroh bad ba ka HNLC ruh kan ïohlad ban ïasuk bad ki. Lyngba kane ka Kynhun, ki riewpaidbah kin ïoh ruh ka lad ban pynpaw, ban kylli bad ban pyntngen ïalade. Kane kan ïarap ruh ia ki ban khylliap noh ia ka kitab jingim kaba kthang jong ki. (iii) ka paw ruh ba kumba ka HNLC ka la tlot ha kiba bun ki liang bad khamtam ha ka jingdon ki dkhot. Hynrei ki lah ban mih shibun ki daw ha ki sngi ki ban wan ki ban pynlong ia ki samla ka Ri ban pynkhie im biang ia ka kam kieng atiar. Ki Sorkar kim dei ban kheiñ sting ia kane, pynban ki dei ban ïakhun shitom ban poi sha ka jingpynbeit ia ki jingeh bad jingdawa jong ka HNLC.
