What's up LSYO?

Seldom do I go through the Circulars published in local media but when I did, this particular circular published by LSYO in 1^st April edition of the Arunachal Times made me wonder,"what's up LSYO?". The circular read:

It is information to general public of Raga & Yachuli Constituency that there will be meeting on 03-04-10 at Hotel Arun Subansiri, Itanagar, Time 10 a.m. onwards to discuss about Hapoli township. NES, ANSU, AYSU, ARASU, intellectual, senior leaders etc. with panchayat leaders also present. All are requested to attend positively.

-Signed, President L.S.Y.O

What's up? When you are calling a meeting to discuss about Hapoli Township, why invitation only for NES, ANSU, AYSU, ARASU intellectuals, senior leaders, panchayat leaders of only one community? Why have you forgotten to invite the residents of Hapoli Township?

BTW who's this LSYO? If I'm getting it right LSYO stands for Lower Subansiri Youth Organization. If yes then, when you are inviting ANSU, AYSU and ARASU why didn't you invited the students' and youth organisation of Lower Subansiri District like ALSSU or ASU or AYA? And moreover, when you are discussing about Hapoli Township, why conduct meeting at Itanagar and not Hapoli? Is Itanagar closer in distance to Hapoli Town for public of Raga & Yachuli Constituency? Or is there any ulterior motive? Only those who attended the said meeting today would be able to tell what's up?

Below is the circular as published in The Arunachal Times.



P.S. Those who attended the said meeting today, do please tell us what's up?

Was the report by Times Now news channel on Chinese incursion into Arunachal Pradesh farce?

I had never been a fan of Indian private news channel because of their insensible reporting and their dubious distinction of sensationalizing the case to increase their TRP ratings. And when it comes to reporting on North-Eastern states (which is negligible), these news channel has almost made us to believe that the news report would always be far from the truth and would be based on concocted facts to make the viewers believe what they want to project.

Take for example the case of NETV that we reported earlier. The news channel in order to sensationalize the case, reported that National Liberation Front of Taniland (NLFT) is an ‘Apatani’ underground outfit fighting for separate homeland for Apatani Community. That, their headquarter is based at Ziro-the primary dwelling place of Apatani community, which is some 15 kms from China border. The report-all farce and based on concocted facts.

Now, it is turn of yet another news channel, Times Now, who I presume, in their over-zealousness to report on recent Chinese incursion into Indian territory had presented a report based on concocted facts to the viewers.

How do I say that?

Is the freedom of speech and expression being challenged?

Article 19 clause (1) sub-clause (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to its citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions (as laid down in Article 19, Clause (2)) on the exercise of this right relating to:

1. defamation;
2. contempt of Court;
3. decency or morality;
4. public order;
5. incitement to an offense;
6. security of the state;
7. friendly relation with foreign state;
8. maintenance of sovereignty and integrity of India.

But recently when Nabam Tuki, Minister PWD and UD and APCC President threatened to lodge an FIR against one Tana Takang for expressing his views in a popular local press media, it made me wonder if the 'Freedom of Speech and Expression' conferred to its' citizen by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has been challenged.

A brief history of the issue

In it's April, 08 edition, The Arunachal Times published a letter of one Tana Takang in its' 'Readers' Forum' column, wherein the author, apparently fed up with the political rhetoric dished out by the political parties and their candidates; allegations and counter-allegations during their campaign for LS polls appearing in the local dailies, had asked both the parties-ruling and opposition (read INC and BJP) to debate it out in a common platform in line of Presidential elections of US of A, so that the common masses could decide better and select the right candidate to represent them in the parliament. Well, this seem the core of the letter to me.

The letter, however, did not go down well with the ruling Congress Party and a press statement appeared the next day where APCC President Nabam Tuki threatened to lodge an FIR against the said person terming the letter was written with the intend to malign the area.

"Tuki further referring to a Readers' Forum published in this daily by one Tana Takang said that as per their observation, there is no such person residing in the said locality. He said that whoever is behind the letter was doing it with intend to malign the area and it needed to be punished as per law. The party will lodge an FIR against the said person to trace out the reality, he added."

-The Arunachal Times, 09-04-09 issue
under heading 'Sonia to address Itanagar rally'

After going through the statement of the Minister in the paper, my first reaction was how could anyone try to curb one's 'Freedom of Speech and Expression' by threatening. However, instead of reacting to the statement instantly, I decided to put aside my emotional outburst and try to see if the author had put reasonable restrictions as laid down in Article 19, Clause 2 while expressing his views or not. So I went through the said letter again, and I could not come up with anything objectionable that could have suggested that the author have not put 'reasonable restrictions' while expressing his views. Or have I missed something that others may find objectionable in the letter that might suggest that the author had not put reasonable restrictions? Go through the letter (reproduced below) for yourself and put in your comments if the letter was objectionable to attract the ire of APCC President and an FIR threat.



Was the letter intended to malign the area as put by the Minister?

Now coming to the Ministers' allegation that said person does not reside in the locality and that the letter was written with the intend to malign the area, in which case I guess the area under question is Chimpu, Itanagar, I could not quite comprehend how the letter was intended to malign Chimpu. Apart from mentioning Chimpu, Itanagar in the address, there is no mention of Chimpu, not even once in the body of the letter itself, whether with good intend or bad intend. :) And on their observation that letter was written by a person not 'physically' residing in the locality; does it really matter? In fact, I found the allegation quite flimsy and childish. The charge seem more of to bully the person who quite openly appreciated the opposition candidate through his letter.

So, is it the case of curbing one's freedom of speech and expression by bullying tactic or indeed the author of the letter has not put restraint while expressing his views?

Does celebration of Festival calls for animal sacrifice?

Norbu Lama writes in to Arunachal Diary,

Celebration of festival is life of one's culture and certainly we must celebrate our festivals with all traditional ways. But the animal sacrifice in public, specially in presence of foreign guests and media people from outside, gives an impression that we are educated barbarians. If we look into the history of any community or society we will find that all were once tribal societies like us and their culture and traditions were similar. Others have improved. Can't we?

It has made me ponder, does celebration of festival indeed call for animal sacrifice? Can we make do without animal sacrifice and celebrate the festival with same pomp and gaiety? I guess we can.

What do you say?