News Alerts
prev next

Violence is condemnable  

Editor,

First I would like to congratulate the regional Political Parties and the NGOs across the North East region of India, for uniting and standing tall against the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). Their united stand has protected us, in the North East, from further demographic, social and economical upheavals that could have come about from further influx from across our borders. The fact that they were able to sink their political differences to make a united stand indicates their maturity of thinking. Kudos to all involved.

Further, the fact that the protests were, by and large, peaceful in nature also shows their concern for the welfare of the common man. Of course the bandhs had disrupted normal life across the region, but I guess the common man was willing to make a few sacrifices for the common good. History has shown us that violence only begets more violence and more problems. It is the discussions and negotiations across the table that have brought lasting solutions. Bandhs, and other more violent forms of protest, should always be the last resort and, that too only to force discussions and negotiations.

The celebration by different groups across the region on their victory over the CAB was also welcome. However, the violence perpetrated by a group during their victory march is shameful and condemnable. Violence against soft targets during the celebrations shows the immaturity and shortsightedness of those involved. Some NGOs in Meghalaya have glorified violence as a means to achieving solutions and this is deplorable. I call upon the leaders of those groups to show their maturity and change their approach. I reiterate that it was not the violence but the negotiations that have brought lasting solutions.

I condemn the violence during the victory march and express my solidarity with the innocent victims who were needlessly targeted. I call upon the District Administration not to tolerate any form of violence and to bring the culprits to book as per the law.

Yours etc.,

RG Lyngdoh

Via email

 

Why target Indian citizens?

Editor,

Violence perpetrated by members of an organization during so called victory march over CAB on the on February 14, 2019 leading to assault and injury of some innocent persons in Shillong is highly condemnable. Can the leaders of the organization which resorted to such despicable act enlighten us about the role of those innocent persons in the issue? Were those persons illegal Bangladeshis?  Such act clearly exposes the fact that the opposition to the CAB is actually directed solely against the non-tribal Indian citizens of the state. The statement made by the leader of the organization dissociating itself from the violence is nothing but a blatant lie.  When they have organised the programme without permission from the district administration, responsibility of stone pelting and violence squarely rests on them. Just by blaming some vested interest they cannot abdicate their responsibility in the entire episode. Time and again the minority community (non tribal) of the state who are genuine Indian citizens have been targeted in the name of protecting the rights of tribal people. In this age of globalization and rapidly changing geo-political scenario, such violence cannot ensure protection of smaller ethnic groups in India or any part of the world. The State Government which is constitutionally bound to give protection to all its citizens should come down heavily on such organizations and direct the law enforcement agencies to take stern action against the culprits.

Yours etc.,

NK Kehar

Shillong 3

 

Why accidental Prime Minister?

Editor,

False Dilemma or False Dichotomy is a logical fallacy. This fallacy has a few other names ~ black-and-white fallacy, either-or fallacy and bifurcation fallacy. This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are indeed more options available. It is not at all a fallacy when there are only two available options. For example, it is not a fallacy to say,  “If you voted for a candidate, then you either voted for Donald Trump or for Hillary Clinton” in a two party presidential election in the United States of America. But it is a false dilemma fallacy to say, “You have to vote for either Narendra Modi or Rahul Gandhi,” in our parliamentary democracy.

In a parliamentary democracy, every voter gets the opportunity during the general elections to elect a Member of Parliament to represent her or him among the candidates who are contesting the seat in her or his Lok Sabha constituency. Then the party which gets the majority in the Lok Sabha selects a Prime Minister to “be appointed by the President” (Article 75). Therefore, to tag Manmohan Singh as the “Accidental Prime Minister,” is an example of false dilemma or false dichotomy fallacy. The voters of our country need to be aware about the difference between the parliamentary and presidential form of democracy to understand that it is a fallacious argument to project a Prime Minister of India as accidental.

Yours etc., 

Sujit De,

Via email

You might also like More from author

Comments

error: Content is protected !!