Shillong, November 13: Umïam Hotels Private Limited (UHPL) has apologised for the use of the name ‘Barapani’ instead of ‘Umïam’ in a press release issued by Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) announcing a proposed Taj Resort in Meghalaya, following objections raised by the Hynñiewtrep Youths’ Council (HYC).
In a clarification letter dated November 13, addressed to HYC president Roy Kupar Synrem, Umïam Hotels acknowledged the Council’s concerns and expressed regret over the reference, describing it as inadvertent and unintentional. The company apologised for any sentiments that may have been hurt by the use of the name and clarified that it was never intended to disregard or undermine the historical, cultural or local identity of Umïam.
UHPL reaffirmed its respect for the significance of the name ‘Umïam’ and the sentiments attached to it by the indigenous people of Meghalaya.
The company further clarified that it had neither intended nor endorsed any change to the locally recognised name of the area, pointing out that its own corporate name reflected its association with and respect for Umïam.
Responding to HYC’s demand for corrective action, Umïam Hotels assured the Council that it would take up the matter with IHCL to ensure that the name ‘Umïam’ is appropriately reflected in future project-related communications, promotional materials and official references, wherever applicable. The clarification followed a statement issued earlier on November 13 by HYC, strongly objecting to IHCL’s use of ‘Barapani’ instead of ‘Umïam’ in its November 12 announcement concerning the proposed Taj Resort.
HYC president Roy Kupar Synrem had demanded an explanation from IHCL over the reference and called for its immediate correction in the company’s corporate records, press releases, promotional materials and future communications.
The Council had also sought clarification from Umïam Hotels regarding its position on the use of the name ‘Barapani’ and whether the company had endorsed or consented to the reference. HYC demanded that both companies clarify their positions and confirm the corrective measures they intended to undertake.
The organisation warned that failure to respond within a reasonable period would compel it to consider further appropriate steps. While stating that it welcomed development and investment in Meghalaya, the Council maintained that such initiatives should not come at the expense of the state’s indigenous identity, cultural heritage and traditional place names.
In its response, Umïam Hotels reiterated its commitment to respecting Meghalaya’s traditions, heritage, culture and identity. The company also expressed hope that its clarification and assurance of corrective measures would address the concerns raised by the HYC.
