This is an aside, not a comment on any particular issue. While going through a piece of news item yesterday, I found that Assam Tribal Sangha has decided to celebrate this 15 August as the day of deception.
The particular point highlighted was the guarantee of employment to hills tribes, plains tribes and scheduled castes by the Constitution of India. [I am not sure whether Sri K J Deka refers to this kind of reservation by the constitutive document with the poser " Why create a divisive ethos in the first place?" I am not into that] At present, according to the communique, there is some sort of a court of the High Court, asking the State Government to follow the "Roster System" ( a procedure for implementation of the provisions of the Constitution regarding reservation in case of employment) even in case of contract appointments, pending final decision on the issue. The Sangha has stated in the release that about 6000+ appointments have been made by the Education Minister on contractual basis with total disregard for the "Roster System" and employments are being doled out to non-tribal people depriving them of constitutional guarantee by colored exercise of power flouting even the court order. Could this, the fact that despite the provisions like autonomy, reservations etc. ingrained in the interstices of the Constitution, which theoretically the people of India had given to themselves and are bound to adhere to, are not implemented by the Ruling Polity and have become advertisement or big promises only to be used for the purpose of deceit for whatever reason, be one of the causes for the fisiparous tendencies resulting in clamor for autonomy, sovereignty, separate state, separate Ulubari / Uzan Bazar etc? Is it the lack of opportunity in real life more than the absence of constraints in theory that is leading to the centripetal forces within the society? Whether 'reservation' 'promises in the accords like Assam Accord/ Bodo accord', 'autonomy' ' reservation for women' 'reservation for physically handicapped' 'Special lavatory for those bound to wheel chairs'etc. that create special categories in divers walks of life should necessarily cause a divisive ethos or is it a necessary recognition to social and historical reality of uneven development in a particular society attempting to give equal opportunity, is a highly contentious issue, and has already led to much turmoil, which, I suppose, we may not be able to sum up in a sentence or two here. kamal deka kjit.deka at gmail.com In a land of diversity, when a person of a majority community -- not necessarily in terms of religion -- is told that another's culture is very different from his and thus must be "protected" at all costs, the minorities are automatically regarded as "them." And when that "protection" impinges on the rights of the majority, the minorities come to be seen as the "enemy." This is simply human nature, not in any government's control. However, resentments simmer and, at a time of crisis, quickly turn into acts of violence. Which acts, of course, are controllable by the law of the land. But my question is: Why create a divisive ethos in the first place?? That "individual basis" is what true secularism is all about. Secularism exists when the State does not espouse a religion; lets its citizens follow their different faiths even while preventing any one from intruding on the others; and treats all religions equally -- regardless of the number of people following each religion. Meaning, whether the majority or the minority community, one rule applies to all. "Special-interest groups" does not make for national unity and never will -- only assimilation can.Unless we achieve this goal,it will be a wild goose chase to think of those lofty ideals like " One Global village" or " World without boundaries" KJD Uttam Kumar Borthakur _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
