Northeast Desk, 11th August: The Adiland & Upright People’s Organization (AUPO) has strongly defended Vijay Taram, General Secretary of Adi Baané Kébang (ABK) and State Information Commissioner, against increasing criticism and demands for his removal. AUPO has voiced its opposition to what it considers unjustified and harmful actions targeting Taram.
The controversy erupted following a letter from the President of the Nyishi Elite Society (NES) to the President of ABK, demanding action against Taram within a week. This was compounded by a petition from the All Nyishi Youth Association (ANYA) to the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, calling for Taram’s termination. The central issue is the Charter of Demand No. 1, which seeks to repeal the District-based Entrepreneur Act of 2015—a law significant for promoting local entrepreneurship, particularly among the Adi community.
AUPO leaders, including President James Badu and General Secretary Zingge Moyong, criticized these demands as misguided and detrimental to local entrepreneurial progress. They emphasized that the District-based Entrepreneur Act has been instrumental in empowering the Adi community and warned that repealing it would reverse these achievements.
In response, Vijay Taram issued a respectful statement, urging reconsideration of the demand, while maintaining a measured tone. According to AUPO, Taram’s approach reflects his duty to advocate for the Adi society’s interests as an ABK leader. They argue that failing to do so would constitute a neglect of his responsibilities.
AUPO expressed disappointment with the NES’s interpretation of Taram’s statement, which they believe was wrongly seen as a personal view rather than an official ABK position. They criticized the actions of NES and ANYA as immature and unjustified, urging a more responsible and thoughtful approach to the matter.
Reaffirming their support for Taram, AUPO leaders called on all parties to reconsider the push to repeal the District-based Entrepreneur Act of 2015. They stressed their commitment to the welfare and development of local entrepreneurs and highlighted the broader implications of this dispute for the community’s progress.