•-Because of the PIL in the Honourable High Court Guwahati, Phek DCC was constrained to raise this issue but today Chotisu Sazo has opened the chapter for public discussion. From his speech booklet we find his mind was set to provoke the Chakhesang community, wishing the community to voluntarily decide to remove the ‘backward’ label.
Shame or pride is not the basis of formulating policy. Sazo is in great shame to be Chakhesang. For his comfort, he may like to know that in the context of employment, the word backward signifies the status of less representation in govt. service and is not viewed from the point of economy or civilization or qualification. To cover their failure to protect the Chakhesang Community’s interests, they have incited CPO and CSU to file PIL.
Sazo talks about his scientific reasons and admits of error. According to participants, he read his printed speech proudly and without slightest hesitation justifying his point of great shame and substantiating his point that 20% of Chakhesang population are employed is blind pride and ego added with scientific ignorance.
In our view, the basis should be justice and equality particularly in matters of opportunities with special opportunities for backward communities. It is a matter of policy and the local representative knows best the conditions of the community. The issue should be decided by the Govt and cannot be decided by the Court as to what quantity should be reserved for each tribe. We have no objection to any reservation quota given to any community. However, to notify or de-notify “backward”, the Govt. should make proper assessment and arrive at a logical benchmark. We demand justice and equal ratio representation and not category. Allotting 4% has no basis and there is no logic. The allocation should be based on population.
The immature and wild allegation has continued even in his rejoinder. He alleged that former Finance Minister K. Therie was cabinet minister when 25% allotment to Tuensang, Mon, Kiphere and Longleng, which was notified in the month of Sept 2005. To set the record straight, Therie resigned on 6th May 2005. Therefore, the allegation is unfounded and does not hold water. The allegation is an attempt to divert attention and is an act of defamation.
Shame or pride is not the basis of formulating policy. Sazo is in great shame to be Chakhesang. For his comfort, he may like to know that in the context of employment, the word backward signifies the status of less representation in govt. service and is not viewed from the point of economy or civilization or qualification. To cover their failure to protect the Chakhesang Community’s interests, they have incited CPO and CSU to file PIL.
Sazo talks about his scientific reasons and admits of error. According to participants, he read his printed speech proudly and without slightest hesitation justifying his point of great shame and substantiating his point that 20% of Chakhesang population are employed is blind pride and ego added with scientific ignorance.
In our view, the basis should be justice and equality particularly in matters of opportunities with special opportunities for backward communities. It is a matter of policy and the local representative knows best the conditions of the community. The issue should be decided by the Govt and cannot be decided by the Court as to what quantity should be reserved for each tribe. We have no objection to any reservation quota given to any community. However, to notify or de-notify “backward”, the Govt. should make proper assessment and arrive at a logical benchmark. We demand justice and equal ratio representation and not category. Allotting 4% has no basis and there is no logic. The allocation should be based on population.
The immature and wild allegation has continued even in his rejoinder. He alleged that former Finance Minister K. Therie was cabinet minister when 25% allotment to Tuensang, Mon, Kiphere and Longleng, which was notified in the month of Sept 2005. To set the record straight, Therie resigned on 6th May 2005. Therefore, the allegation is unfounded and does not hold water. The allegation is an attempt to divert attention and is an act of defamation.
Sd/-
Mikha Kenye, President,
District Congress Committee, Phek
Sd/-
Khosapa Venuh, General Secretary,
District Congress Committee, Phek
