Editor,
I, write to express my deepest condemnation regarding the tragic death of our beloved colleague and friend, Huddersfield Rymbui, on November 15, 2024. His untimely passing is not just a personal loss for us, but a tragedy that has shaken the entire community.
It is with great sorrow and frustration that we point out the reckless actions surrounding this incident, which were directly linked to the so-called VIP culture. The police escort assigned to the Tourism Minister, as part of the VIP protocol, was conducted in an irresponsible manner and led to the fatal accident that claimed the life of our dear friend. We cannot allow this culture of privilege to continue at the cost of innocent lives.
I strongly condemn the reckless handling of this police escort, and I believe that such incidents should not be tolerated under any circumstances. The tragic loss of Huddersfield Rymbui highlights a systemic issue that demands urgent attention: the dangerous, unchecked nature of VIP movements and their negative impact on public safety. This must end, and I call on the government to take immediate steps to prevent such incidents in the future.
As the founder of the West Jaintia Hills District Adventure Sports and Mountaineering Club, I demand justice for our brother. We stand united in our grief and our call for accountability. The government must act swiftly to ensure that the reckless VIP culture, which has cost us so much, is abolished, and that no more lives are lost because of it.
We say a firm no to the VIP culture that endangers the lives of ordinary citizens, and we urge the authorities to ensure that this never happens again. Our thoughts are with Huddersfield’s family, and we stand together in demanding justice.
Yours etc.,
Sambor Surong
Founder,
West Jaintia Hills District Adventure Sports and Mountaineering Club
Via email
NEHU crisis: Addressing assumptions
Editor,
Apropos of the article by Deepak Kumar Shahi titled, “The Tenure of Turmoil” (ST Nove 12, 2024), while I commend Mr Shahi for presenting facts in the sections “The Appointment” and “The Recruitment”, I find that the information in the section “The Protest” is based on assumptions, which I believe unfairly, undermines the efforts of those leading the protest.
Firstly, Mr Shahi claims that the protest was, “orchestrated by NEHUTA to say the least.” There is no evidence to support this assertion. He provides no substantial proof but continues to suggest that NEHUSU is under the control of NEHUTA, a claim not supported by facts.
Second, he argues that the involvement of NEHUSU in the protest is “haphazard, unplanned and vague”. The word “involvement” is inappropriate as NEHUSU is leading the protest. Is Mr. Shahi implying that NEHUSU is merely a figurehead while someone else is running the protest? I also find it unfair to describe the protest as “haphazard” when the possibility of such an event was clearly communicated through a meeting with the hostel prefects on November 4.
Third, Mr Shahi argues that NEHUSU did not protest the hostel fee hike. However, after speaking with NEHUSU representatives I learned that the issue was raised as early as 2022 during the tenure of the then NEHUSU and was approved by the Academic Council in 2023. Initially it applied to only the new students but later it was extended to all students. The current NEHUSU brought up the issue again but its repeated attempts to resolve the matter with the DSW remained unsuccessful. Hence the focus was shifted to improving the hostel conditions. Its continued sub-standard condition forms another point of contention.
Mr. Shahi points to lack of communication and writes, “Students also have to ask their representatives whether the call for protest is in their interest or someone else’s.” This statement seems to question whether the protest is truly serving the interests of the students. But as mentioned earlier the NEHUSU had already informed the students on November 4 about a possible protest. Throughout the protest NEHUSU has kept the campus informed and had recently also circulated Google Forms where students could submit individual grievances and complaints including photographic evidence. This ensures that the protest is student driven. Further, NEHUSU General Secretary Toniho Kharsati addressed the students gathered at the Central Library on November 5, clarifying to students and outlining the reasons behind the protest and how it aligns with the broader student concerns. It is unclear if Mr. Shahi attended this gathering or was aware of these efforts for while seemingly raising valid concerns he overlooked the efforts made by NEHUSU to keep the protest rooted in student’s collective needs.
While it is true that not all issues require the Vice Chancellor’s attention, many do. For instance, one female hostel had to seek help from NEHUSU to address a mentally and physically inhospitable environment. It led to a letter being sent to both the VC and DSW. Similarly, a department sought funding for journal publication and approached the VC for the same which was denied. These are just a few examples that highlight the extent of power the VC holds in NEHU and his reluctance to offer assistance. A failed leadership creates chaos and this is precisely the situation NEHU is currently facing. NEHUSU’s decision to take a stand is hence commendable despite any possible flaws. No movement is flawless. As students they are also navigating a complex system. It is not uncommon for movements like these to attract unfair criticism. However, this should not overshadow the genuine efforts of NEHUSU.
Yours etc.,
Arpita Saikia, NEHU,
Via email