Railways used to be known as the poor man’s mode of transport. Goods trains can make the transportation of good faster and cheaper. Railways entering the Khasi-Jaintia Hills would make it cheaper for goods to be transported from here and vice versa. So the opposition to railways is short-sighted to say the least. The only people who would oppose railways are those that have a vested interest in continuing with road transportation which makes all our goods much more expensive than they are in Guwahati. Hence many from Meghalaya go to Guwahati to pick up their hardware materials such as tiles, electrical and sanitary fittings et al.
The Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) has been opposing railways from the early 1980s. The narrative has remained unchanged thirty years down the line. Now it is the Federation of Khasi-Jaintia-Garo Peoples (FKJGP) that is trumpeting the same agenda. Interestingly the FKJGP (with the G in their acronym)never opposed the train to Garo Hills (Mendipathar) which today has become a great boon for people who need to transport their agricultural products from Garo Hills and other essential food items from the rest of the country to Garo Hills. So how can the FKJGP oppose railways in the Khasi-Jaintia Hills and not in Garo Hills? Is it not because the people of Garo Hills understand the advantages of having railways and that they would not have brooked any impediment to the fruition of this development project? In the Khasi-Jaintia Hills, there have been no public discussions on the matter. Pressure groups have taken it for granted that the public of Khasi-Jaintia Hills also oppose the railways.
It is impossible to think of trade, commerce or transportation without the railways. Indeed the railways have influenced trade and business in a remarkable way. In the larger cities the major markets grew in and around the main railway stations. New settlements developed alongside the railways. Those who oppose the railways must be told to give alternatives to the Government on other forms of public transportation that can connect people from Meghalaya to the rest of India and vice versa at a similar cost and comfort level. Considering that Meghalaya has no manufacturing hub other than cement factories and has to rely on the rest of India for all essential food commodities, clothes, medicines, hospital equipment, construction materials et al, railways would have made all the above items cheaper. Those who oppose the railways must state in no uncertain terms why they do so. If the grounds are untenable, it is time for those who believe in the efficacy of railways to seek judicial intervention.