Rebuttal to the views of three ‘Independent Researchers’ is entirely untenable
|
K Yugindro Singh, Sh Janaki Sharma & M Manihar Singh (Independent Researchers)
Apropos the article authored by NgaranmiShimray entitled “Rebuttal to three ‘Independent Researchers’ on ST demand for Meiteis” published in the editorial page of the esteemed English local daily, The Sangai Express on 18th October 2023 in response to the views expressed by the three ‘Independent Researchers’ namely, K Yugindro Singh, Sh Janaki Sharma & M Manihar Singh on 14th October 2023. After having examined minutely the article entitled ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meiteis exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published by Ngaranmi Shimray on 10th October 2023, the rebuttal to the three ‘Independent Researchers’ views is undoubtedly untenable and tantamount to misleading and concealment of truth for the following reasons:
1. In para (1) of the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meiteis exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023, Ngaranmi Shimray said that “Kaka Kalelkar Backward Classes Commission report of 1956, also known as the Second Backward Classes Commission report states that the Meiteis, when given a opportunity to be ST, did not include themselves. This is a startling and undeniable fact!” Here Ngaranmi Shimray has exposed his own ignorance on three aspects: (i) The so- called Kaka Kalelkar Commission was the first Backward Classes Commission (let alone the second Backward Classes Commission, as asserted); (ii) The Kaka Kalelkar Report was of 1955 and not 1956 as asserted; (ii) Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report mentioned neither about the opportunity given to the Meiteis for inclusion in ST list nor about the denial of the Meiteis for inclusion in ST list.
This para tacitly shows that Ngaranmi Shimray is BLUFFING the mass as if he were fully acquainted with the Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report, 1955.
2. This is not true that Meitei excluded themselves from the ST list by their own choice taking into account the Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report, 1955. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission neither had the authority to examine the case of Meitei tribe for inclusion in the revised list of tribes of Manipur nor had the authority to recommend the Meitei tribe to the President for inclusion in the ST list.
The constraints faced by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission had arisen essentially on account of two factors viz., (i) Meitei had not been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes of Manipur already published by the President of India under the Constitution Order C.O. 33 i.e., the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951 dated 20th September 1951 and (ii) The mandate of authority assigned to the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, as directed by the President of India, is : ‘The President of India was pleased to direct the commission to examine the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as already published under his order and to suggest any revision of those lists, if on enquiry it was found that such a revision was necessary’ (See Kaka Kalelkar Commission Volume-I Chap. IX., pp. 154, para 1). It may be pertinent to note that at that point of time, Manipur neither had Legislative Assembly nor Ministers who could represent Meitei community for interaction with the Kaka Kalelkar Commission on the issue, in question.
3. In para (2) of the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023, its author, NgaranmiShimray said : “The Meiteis claimed that they were left out in the ST notification under President’s Constitution (STs) Order, 1950. This was found to be true by the Kaka Kalekar Commission of 1956".
Here it may be pointed out that Kaka Kalelkar Commission had nothing to do with the President’s Constitution (STs) Order, 1950 and also that no ST list of Manipur was scheduled to the President’s Constitution (STs) Order, 1950, as asserted wrongly by Ngaranmi Shimray. The first ST list of Manipur was scheduled to the Constitution Order CO 33 i.e., the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951 dated 20th September 1951. Before notification of the CO 33, as required by Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the Central Government asked the then Chief Commissioner, the Rajpramukh of Manipur sometime in 1950-51 to recommend a list of tribes of Manipur for inclusion in the first Scheduled Tribes list of Manipur in the Constitution Order to be notified by the then President of India. Himmat Singh Maheshwari, the then Chief Commissioner of Manipur did not recommend Meitei for inclusion in the ST list of Manipur, despite knowing the fact that Meitei had already been recognized as a primitive tribe of the erstwhile Assam province for all census operations of India starting from the Census of India 1881.
On the other hand, Himmat Singh Maheshwari recommended (i) Any Kuki tribe, (ii) Any Lushai tribe and (iii) Any Naga tribe for inclusion in the ST list of Manipur. The non-recommendation of Meitei by the then Chief Commissioner, Himmat Singh Maheshwari was the sole reason as to why Meitei was left out in the ST list of Manipur under CO 33; Meitei’s exclusion from the first ST list of Manipur was not by their own choice which was wrongly asserted by Ngaranmi Shimray. It is pertinent to note that at that point of time, an atmosphere of public unrest, confusion, chaos and desperation prevailed in Manipur subsequent to its forced merger into India on October 15, 1949. Himmat Singh Maheshwari was found arrogant and antagonistic towards Meitei people hammering dismissal of several Meiteis from Government jobs, freedom of press curtailment, among others.
4. The article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956 : Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023 was essentially based on plagiarized materials and without veracity. The entire contents under para (3) to (5) of the said article are unequivocally copied in ditto/toto from the article entitled “Kaka Kalelkar Commission (Useful Notes)” shared by Puja Mondal at https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/kaka-kalelkar-commission-useful-notes/35172 without disclosing the source of the copied materials. This is a serious act of plagiarism punishable under Section 57 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 with imprisonment for a term varying from six months to three years.
5. Puja Mondal has not referred to any authentic and original sources of information that she used while preparing her article “Kaka Kalelkar Commission (Useful Notes)”. Therefore, the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023 based on Puja Mondal’s article is an academic fraud being committed without veracity.
6. Para 6 of the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023 mentioned that a questionnaire was sent by the BCC to all the States and Union Territories embodying questions like “Do you think that the lists of SCs and STs issued under the President’s order need any revision ? If so, what castes or communities do you suggest for inclusion or exclusion from the above mentioned two lists (SCs & STs list)? Please state reasons … Has your State Government recommended the inclusion in or exclusion from the existing lists of any tribe, caste or community?”
On checking for plagiarism, it is found that the entire material was quoted from an article published in the Imphal Times on 28th August 2023. Kaka Kalelkar Commission Reports Vol. I & II have mentioned nothing about the questionnaire. Thus, the author, Ngaranmi Shimray has committed an act of plagiarism coupled with absolute absence of veracity.
7. It would be undisputedly wrong on the part of Mr Ngaranmi Shimray to rebut the views of the three ‘Independent Researchers’ when he cannot argue relatively and precisely against none of the 12 (twelve) reasons enshrined in their article entitled “Ngaranmi Shimray’s reasons for exclusion of Meitei in the ST list are misleading and incorrect” published on 14th October 2023.
It would also be wrong on his part to bring in materials from Abinay Lakshman’s article “ST status for Meitei was considered and rejected in 1982 and 2001, Government record show” published in the National daily ‘The Hindu” on 17th October 2023 to rebut the article of the three ‘Independent Researchers’ which was published 3 days ahead of the publication of the article of Abinay Lakshman whose materials are completely different from thearticle penned down by the three ‘Independent Researchers’ published on 14th October 2023. Besides, Abinay Lakshman’s article has been rebutted appropriately by the three ‘Independent Researchers’ in their article entitled “Abhinay Lakshman’s observations on the ST status of Meiteis are misleading and incorrect” which was published in some local and National/international media including ‘The Sangai Express’, ‘Ukhrul Times’, ‘e-pao.net’ and Imphal Times during 20th to 23rd October 2023.
Apropos the article authored by NgaranmiShimray entitled “Rebuttal to three ‘Independent Researchers’ on ST demand for Meiteis” published in the editorial page of the esteemed English local daily, The Sangai Express on 18th October 2023 in response to the views expressed by the three ‘Independent Researchers’ namely, K Yugindro Singh, Sh Janaki Sharma & M Manihar Singh on 14th October 2023. After having examined minutely the article entitled ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meiteis exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published by Ngaranmi Shimray on 10th October 2023, the rebuttal to the three ‘Independent Researchers’ views is undoubtedly untenable and tantamount to misleading and concealment of truth for the following reasons:
1. In para (1) of the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meiteis exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023, Ngaranmi Shimray said that “Kaka Kalelkar Backward Classes Commission report of 1956, also known as the Second Backward Classes Commission report states that the Meiteis, when given a opportunity to be ST, did not include themselves. This is a startling and undeniable fact!” Here Ngaranmi Shimray has exposed his own ignorance on three aspects: (i) The so- called Kaka Kalelkar Commission was the first Backward Classes Commission (let alone the second Backward Classes Commission, as asserted); (ii) The Kaka Kalelkar Report was of 1955 and not 1956 as asserted; (ii) Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report mentioned neither about the opportunity given to the Meiteis for inclusion in ST list nor about the denial of the Meiteis for inclusion in ST list.
This para tacitly shows that Ngaranmi Shimray is BLUFFING the mass as if he were fully acquainted with the Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report, 1955.
2. This is not true that Meitei excluded themselves from the ST list by their own choice taking into account the Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report, 1955. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission neither had the authority to examine the case of Meitei tribe for inclusion in the revised list of tribes of Manipur nor had the authority to recommend the Meitei tribe to the President for inclusion in the ST list.
The constraints faced by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission had arisen essentially on account of two factors viz., (i) Meitei had not been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes of Manipur already published by the President of India under the Constitution Order C.O. 33 i.e., the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951 dated 20th September 1951 and (ii) The mandate of authority assigned to the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, as directed by the President of India, is : ‘The President of India was pleased to direct the commission to examine the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as already published under his order and to suggest any revision of those lists, if on enquiry it was found that such a revision was necessary’ (See Kaka Kalelkar Commission Volume-I Chap. IX., pp. 154, para 1). It may be pertinent to note that at that point of time, Manipur neither had Legislative Assembly nor Ministers who could represent Meitei community for interaction with the Kaka Kalelkar Commission on the issue, in question.
3. In para (2) of the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023, its author, NgaranmiShimray said : “The Meiteis claimed that they were left out in the ST notification under President’s Constitution (STs) Order, 1950. This was found to be true by the Kaka Kalekar Commission of 1956".
Here it may be pointed out that Kaka Kalelkar Commission had nothing to do with the President’s Constitution (STs) Order, 1950 and also that no ST list of Manipur was scheduled to the President’s Constitution (STs) Order, 1950, as asserted wrongly by Ngaranmi Shimray. The first ST list of Manipur was scheduled to the Constitution Order CO 33 i.e., the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951 dated 20th September 1951. Before notification of the CO 33, as required by Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the Central Government asked the then Chief Commissioner, the Rajpramukh of Manipur sometime in 1950-51 to recommend a list of tribes of Manipur for inclusion in the first Scheduled Tribes list of Manipur in the Constitution Order to be notified by the then President of India. Himmat Singh Maheshwari, the then Chief Commissioner of Manipur did not recommend Meitei for inclusion in the ST list of Manipur, despite knowing the fact that Meitei had already been recognized as a primitive tribe of the erstwhile Assam province for all census operations of India starting from the Census of India 1881.
On the other hand, Himmat Singh Maheshwari recommended (i) Any Kuki tribe, (ii) Any Lushai tribe and (iii) Any Naga tribe for inclusion in the ST list of Manipur. The non-recommendation of Meitei by the then Chief Commissioner, Himmat Singh Maheshwari was the sole reason as to why Meitei was left out in the ST list of Manipur under CO 33; Meitei’s exclusion from the first ST list of Manipur was not by their own choice which was wrongly asserted by Ngaranmi Shimray. It is pertinent to note that at that point of time, an atmosphere of public unrest, confusion, chaos and desperation prevailed in Manipur subsequent to its forced merger into India on October 15, 1949. Himmat Singh Maheshwari was found arrogant and antagonistic towards Meitei people hammering dismissal of several Meiteis from Government jobs, freedom of press curtailment, among others.
4. The article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956 : Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023 was essentially based on plagiarized materials and without veracity. The entire contents under para (3) to (5) of the said article are unequivocally copied in ditto/toto from the article entitled “Kaka Kalelkar Commission (Useful Notes)” shared by Puja Mondal at https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/kaka-kalelkar-commission-useful-notes/35172 without disclosing the source of the copied materials. This is a serious act of plagiarism punishable under Section 57 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 with imprisonment for a term varying from six months to three years.
5. Puja Mondal has not referred to any authentic and original sources of information that she used while preparing her article “Kaka Kalelkar Commission (Useful Notes)”. Therefore, the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023 based on Puja Mondal’s article is an academic fraud being committed without veracity.
6. Para 6 of the article ‘Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956: Meitei exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice’ published on 10th October 2023 mentioned that a questionnaire was sent by the BCC to all the States and Union Territories embodying questions like “Do you think that the lists of SCs and STs issued under the President’s order need any revision ? If so, what castes or communities do you suggest for inclusion or exclusion from the above mentioned two lists (SCs & STs list)? Please state reasons … Has your State Government recommended the inclusion in or exclusion from the existing lists of any tribe, caste or community?”
On checking for plagiarism, it is found that the entire material was quoted from an article published in the Imphal Times on 28th August 2023. Kaka Kalelkar Commission Reports Vol. I & II have mentioned nothing about the questionnaire. Thus, the author, Ngaranmi Shimray has committed an act of plagiarism coupled with absolute absence of veracity.
7. It would be undisputedly wrong on the part of Mr Ngaranmi Shimray to rebut the views of the three ‘Independent Researchers’ when he cannot argue relatively and precisely against none of the 12 (twelve) reasons enshrined in their article entitled “Ngaranmi Shimray’s reasons for exclusion of Meitei in the ST list are misleading and incorrect” published on 14th October 2023.
It would also be wrong on his part to bring in materials from Abinay Lakshman’s article “ST status for Meitei was considered and rejected in 1982 and 2001, Government record show” published in the National daily ‘The Hindu” on 17th October 2023 to rebut the article of the three ‘Independent Researchers’ which was published 3 days ahead of the publication of the article of Abinay Lakshman whose materials are completely different from thearticle penned down by the three ‘Independent Researchers’ published on 14th October 2023. Besides, Abinay Lakshman’s article has been rebutted appropriately by the three ‘Independent Researchers’ in their article entitled “Abhinay Lakshman’s observations on the ST status of Meiteis are misleading and incorrect” which was published in some local and National/international media including ‘The Sangai Express’, ‘Ukhrul Times’, ‘e-pao.net’ and Imphal Times during 20th to 23rd October 2023.