Developed By: iNFOTYKE
In a letter appearing in this newspaper (ST Aug 20, 2018) written by one Lamkupar Rynjah, Ex-President, KSU Unit, Shillong-2, mention was made of ‘Magnessa International’ and an employee of the firm Purity Phawa, stating that the firm collects money from the public and claiming that the money will be doubled. It is confirmed that Magnessa Enterprise Private Ltd established in 2014 with its corporate office in Chennai and a branch at Shillong is a leading direct selling company for health and wellness products.
The letter by Lumkupar Rynjah (ST Auh 21, 2018) who claims to be Ex-President KSU unit is flawed and baseless and without any concrete evidence on the motives of the people mentioned, namely Nini Kurbah, Purity Phawa and BL Nonglait. This person has pointed to the personal lives of the above ladies to mislead the public instead of talking on the real issue that the indigenous Khasi is facing right now. This clearly is a diversionary tactic. Ironically Lamkupar Rynjah is seeking attention for himself. The question is what is he trying to convey to the people? Our answer is that he is purely narcissistic and suffers from attention deprivation. Such kind of persons need psychological, mental health and medication to treat this deprivation or disorder. All we care is that these three women came from their comfort zones of their homes to form “STIEH.”They feel a need to voice out their concerns for the other Khasi – Jaintia women and men on the dangerous scenario of unchecked mix-marriages. As of now, if the trend carries on the Khasi – Jaintia tribes will be endangered. To be more precise they will only be known in mute photo albums and history books.
It is clearly as daylight that these women are not affiliated to any political organization or have any intentions whatsoever to do so in the future. Right from the first meeting that they had convened they have made it clear that they have no affiliation with any political party/parties. Also, their motive to form ‘STIEH” is not for personal gain but for protection and preservation of the Khasi – Jaintia tribes. By supporting the Social Custom and Lineage, Second Amendment Bill. 2018, the group feels it has done justice to their agenda. If the Bill is not passed at the earliest, the group will fight tooth and nail till the Bill is finally passed in the KHADC. Such deliberations and false claims by individuals to divert the attention of the group will only strengthen its cause. Personal mud-slinging will only reap support from the Khasi – Jaintia people far and wide about the importance of the cause.
All we can say to this individual – Lamkupar Rynjah is to come forward (if he is real) and speak with the group about his intention instead of diverting attention from such a vital issues at this critical moment and beating around the bush and making false allegations towards the leader of the group “STIEH”.
The Supreme Court of India on August 10 last donned the garb of “conscience-keeper” to nudge Parliament to amend the law on keeping criminals out of politics, while hearing petitions seeking an election bar on people facing serious criminal charges and not just those convicted. The five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice Dipak Mishra observed that Parliament has a constitutional obligation to amend Article 102 of the Constitution relating to disqualification of MPs. The Bench said it is a cry of the citizenry and a collective need of the society as a whole. It is a national thinking today and can no longer be ignored by the legislature to inject purity into elections.Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act now bars only those convicted of a criminal offence from contesting elections – during the jail term and for a further six years.
The petitioners – the Public Interest Foundation, Bharatiya Matdata Sangathan and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay have furnished data claiming 34 per cent of the present MPs face serious criminal charges. They have asked the bench, which includes Justices R. F. Nariman, A. M. Khanwilkar, D. Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, to direct the poll panel to bar from polls anyone against whom a serious criminal charge, entailing a punishment of at least five years, has been framed. Initially Attorney-general K K Venugopal had argued that such legislation lay within Parliament’s domain alone and that everyone was innocent until convicted and accepting the petitions may trigger false cases against politicians. He, however, agreed that it was a serious matter if 34 per cent of MPs faced criminal cases and conceded that a stage has come for Parliament to review the situation.
Senior counsel Dinesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Public Interest Foundation said that the Select Committee of Parliament has rejected this idea solely on the ground of criminal jurisprudence of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Today’s politicians, irrespective of their affiliations to party, are all having nexus with goons & criminals for intimidating and coercing voters to exercise their franchise in favour of their parties alone or not allowing them to cast vote at all by threatening with dire consequences. Present-day politicians are in fact using money & muscle power openly with armed goons during elections. Being multimillionaires they are practically purchasing mandate of electorate or forcibly snatching their fundamental right of voting. MPs, serving jail terms, and hard-core criminals like Syed Sahabuddin of Siwan, Bihar deserve to be banned for life for contesting elections and political parties like RJD disbanded.
In view of the long silence of the Selection Committee of Parliament on the issue, Senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing for Ashini Upadhyay , expressed doubt that the legislatures are unlikely to bar candidates facing criminal cases since political parties needed such people.Under the circumstances if democracy is to function and survive at all in the largest democratic country of the world, the Supreme Court of India, as conscience-keeper, can issue a direction to Parliament or Poll panel to cure the cancerous malady.Or else would the NDA Government should bell the cat by legislating a stringent Act and making necessary amendments to Article 102 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Advocate, Kolkata High Court