SHILLONG, FEB 2: Village chiefs in the state on Tuesday demanded the state government to stick to its last year’s decision of not introducing or drafting any fresh bill for traditional institutions but suggested that it should challenge the recent order passed by the High Court on this regard.
The conglomeration of headmen under the banner of the Synjuk Ki Nongsynshar Shnong Ka Bri U Hynniewtrep (SNSBH) has also expressed concern over the lack of initiative on the part of the state government to bring back the KHADC’s VAB pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Also terming the recent cabinet decision to disallow government servants from holding office in traditional body as ‘violation of fundamental rights’, they have reiterated their demand for immediate de-notifying of the notification issued on the matter before February 5.
“We urged the government not to introduce or draft any fresh bill upon the traditional institutions as decided on the meeting held (between the government and headmen) on November 5, last year,” SNSBH general secretary RL Blah said in a letter to the Chief Minister Mukul Sangma on Tuesday.
According to him, the recent ruling of the Meghalaya High Court to include traditional institutions under the purview of the state government has come as a ‘rude shock’ especially at a time when there is major outcry to leave traditional institutions under the autonomous district councils.
Stating that the KHADC had taken a huge step forward to appeal to the Supreme Court on the matter despite the delay of the VAB, he said, “The Synjuk would like to suggest the state government to do the same.”
Demanding the government to follow up the passage of the VAB through the Governor, Blah however said, “Sadly, till date, there was no attempt from your (CM) side even to bring back the bill from the MHA to the office of the Governor.”
Meanwhile, the Synjuk also termed the introduction of Rule 20 (b) of the Meghalaya Conduct (Service) Rules, 1990 as a ‘despicable move’ on the part of the State Government, which will ultimately destroy the sacrosanctity of the Traditional Institutions.
“The rule has caused great hardships to the office bearers of the Traditional Institution, especially in the rural areas who are either illiterate or semi-literate,” Blah said while expressing apprehension that this in turn will only give an upper hand to the government officials and peoples’ representatives to take advantage of the situation.
He further stated, “Moreover, the act is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of a person since without any community or societal responsibility, he/she is no better than an outcast.”
He also informed that the Synjuk had launched a mass poster and signature campaign across Khasi and Jaintia Hills on the January 26, as a mark of protest and demand the state government to de-notify it before the February 5.
Blah further referred to a recent lecture on ‘Participatory Democracy’ by Dr Yogendra Narain, former Secretary General of Rajya Sabha, former Defence Secretary to the Government of India and former Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, where he had appreciated the system in Northeast including Meghalaya which showcased the presence of regional and local autonomous bodies that decentralize power directly to the people of the state.
“This, according to him, demonstrated a true model of participatory democracy involving people from all walks of life in decision making, decentralization, specialization and globalization, political participation, accounting, promoting civil societies and NGOs, empowerment for the weaker section and spread of education,” Blah said.
According to him, the above issues have brought mass concern all over the State, especially for those under government service as evident in the press release by MSGEF (Meghalaya State Government Employees’ Federation) which expressed deep concerned upon the recent amendment.
“Taking into consideration the aspirations of the people of the state, the state government would be wise to rectify the above predicaments starting foremost with the de-notification of the Rule 20 (b) of the Meghalaya Conduct (Service) Rules, 1990,” he stated in the letter.-By Our Reporter
+ There are no comments
Add yours