From Promise to Progress
By Bijoy A. Sangma
The demand for declaring Tura as the winter capital of Meghalaya has gained unprecedented momentum. Over the past few years, the issue has transitioned from political discourse to mass mobilization, hunger strikes, and even violent protests. Organizations such as the Garoland State Movement Committee (GSMC), the A’chik State People’s Front (ASPF), and the A’chik Conscious Holistically Integrated Krima (ACHIK) have intensified their advocacy, urging the Meghalaya government, led by Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma, to fulfil a long-standing aspiration of the Garo community.
Their argument? Equitable development, governance accessibility, and a historical promise left unfulfilled since Meghalaya attained statehood in 1972. Their argument is simple: Meghalaya is not a single-hill state, but a diverse landmass with distinct Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo regions. If the government truly aims for inclusive governance, then administrative power must be decentralized beyond Shillong.
The demand for a second capital in Tura has been met with political caution, administrative hesitancy, and, at times, outright opposition. Yet, the demand has only intensified over the years, gaining renewed momentum as the Garo community asserts its right to fair representation and regional development.
The case for Tura as a winter capital has drawn further inspiration from a similar move by Assam, where Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma recently announced the establishment of a Raj Bhavan in Tezpur and a Mini-Secretariat in Silchar.
A vision conceived five decades ago
The demand for a winter capital is not new. It dates back to Meghalaya’s statehood movement in 1972, when leaders envisioned Shillong and Tura as co-capitals to ensure administrative accessibility across all regions. However, five decades later, the vision remains unfulfilled leading to a growing sense of alienation among the people of Garo Hills, who feel that governance remains Shillong-centric and disconnected from their needs.
In June, 2010, then-Chief Minister Dr. Mukul M. Sangma announced in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly that the government planned to establish a Raj Bhavan Annexe and Mini-Secretariat in Tura to enhance governance efficiency. His remarks came in response to then-Leader of Opposition Conrad K. Sangma, who had raised concerns about the administrative delivery system and the role of Joint Directorates in Tura.
In January 2024, Meghalaya took a small step towards this vision by inaugurating the Raj Bhavan in Tura. However, the larger vision remained unfulfilled. Successive governments are yet to take concrete steps toward its implementation. This longstanding expectation, coupled with slow progress, has only intensified the call for action. The renewed push for a winter capital is not just about political aspirations – it is about revisiting a commitment made decades ago and ensuring that development reaches all corners of Meghalaya.
The Case for a Winter Capital in Tura
Supporters of the movement cite multiple economic, geographical, and governance-based reasons. One of the strongest arguments is Meghalaya’s ethnic diversity and regional imbalance. Shillong, predominantly Khasi-Jaintia in demographic composition, serves as the political and economic hub, while Garo Hills remains underdeveloped despite being home to a substantial state’s population.
Another argument is geographical equity. The rugged terrain of Meghalaya makes travel between Shillong and Tura challenging. The 318-kilometer journey between the two cities often takes between eight to ten hours by road, and during the monsoon season, travel becomes even more treacherous. This isolates the western regions from key government functions, disproportionately affecting one-third of Meghalaya’s population residing in Garo Hills.
Economic disparity is another crucial concern. Shillong enjoys top-tier educational institutions, healthcare facilities, and business hubs, while Tura continues to struggle with limited job opportunities, inadequate infrastructure, and lower economic output. The ‘Meghalaya Next- Vision 2028’ published by the Government of Meghalaya highlights these stark inequalities, noting that Shillong remains the primary hub for economic activities, investment, and urban development. The government’s urban transformation plans and infrastructure expansion projects have largely focused on Shillong and the New Shillong Township, reinforcing the capital city’s economic dominance. Meanwhile, Garo Hills has not received proportional investments, leading to regional imbalances in employment, education, and business opportunities.
Moreover, proponents argue that the state’s geography and climate favour administrative decentralization. Shillong, situated at a higher altitude, experiences harsh winter conditions. In contrast, Tura’s moderate winter climate makes it a more practical location for government operations from October to March.
Additionally, the economic potential of having a government presence in Tura is substantial. The movement’s advocates argue that relocating certain administrative offices could stimulate economic growth, improve real estate development, and create job opportunities in the region.
Several Indian states operate successfully with multiple capitals. Maharashtra from Mumbai and Nagpur, Himachal Pradesh from Shimla and Dharamshala, and Jammu & Kashmir from Srinagar in and Jammu. If Meghalaya adopts a similar model, it would bring governance closer to the people of Garo Hills.
Opposition and Practical Challenges
Despite the demands, strong political and economic resistance stands in the way. Successive governments have hesitated to act decisively. Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma has acknowledged the legitimacy of the demand, yet his administration has not taken concrete steps toward implementation. The primary concern remains the cost of infrastructure development. Establishing a second Secretariat, fully functional Raj Bhavan, and government offices in Tura would require massive financial commitment that the state may find difficult to generate.
Meghalaya’s Health Minister Dr. Ampareen Lyngdoh, has dismissed the idea, arguing that a capital shift could open a Pandora’s box of demands from other districts. “If every district starts saying, ‘Bring this to my district,’ it will be difficult for us to administrate,” she remarked in a public statement.
Adding to this complexity is the volatile history of protests and unrest surrounding the issue. In July 2023, mass demonstrations turned violent when an angry mob gathered outside the Chief Minister’s office in Tura. The protest escalated into clashes with law enforcement, resulting in injuries to five police personnel and the imposition of a night curfew. Such incidents highlight the deep-seated frustration among the people, who feel marginalized and ignored in the larger governance framework of Meghalaya.
Furthermore, the economic feasibility of a dual-capital system is a major concern. Critics argue that investing in a winter capital should not take precedence over urgent developmental needs in health, education, and public infrastructure.
A Pragmatic Path Forward: Finding Common Ground
Given the historical, cultural, and administrative significance of the demand, an outright rejection would only fuel more discontent. At the same time, given the economic and political challenges, declaring Tura as a full-fledged winter capital overnight may be unrealistic. However, a phased and strategic approach could provide a balanced solution that satisfies both governance efficiency and fiscal prudence.
1. Gradual Administrative Decentralization: The first step toward decentralization could involve strengthening Tura’s administrative role by relocating select departments to pilot-test administrative feasibility. Establishing an Additional Secretariat in Tura, housing key departments, which have direct relevance to the region’s economy and community, can be considered.
2. Infrastructure Development First: Tura lacks the necessary infrastructure to host a full-fledged government presence. Investment in roads, power supply, educational institutions, and digital governance tools should precede any administrative shift.
3. Seasonal Governance Shifts: Relocation of certain government operations to Tura between October and March and to Shillong for the remainder of the year. This approach has been successfully implemented in Jammu & Kashmir, allowing equal administrative attention to both regions without overburdening the state budget.
4. Strengthening Digital Governance: Instead of massive physical relocations, Meghalaya can enhance e-governance and digital administration, allowing officials to function remotely from Tura for designated months. This could reduce dependence on physical presence in Shillong, making administrative services accessible remotely.
5. Special Economic Zone (SEZ) : Regardless of the capital decision, Meghalaya must address the economic marginalization of Garo Hills by incentivizing private sector investments, improving connectivity, and establishing Special Economic Zones (SEZs). Encouraging investments in IT hubs, tourism, and agribusiness could provide employment opportunities and bring private sector growth to Garo Hills. This approach would align with the state’s broader economic vision while addressing the developmental imbalance between eastern and western Meghalaya.
6. Feasibility Study: The state government should commission a comprehensive study through a team comprising multi-group community leaders, all stakeholders from key communities and technical experts to objectively study economic, logistical and administrative implications.
A defining moment for Meghalaya’s future
My recent interactions with citizens in Garo hills reveals that the demand for a winter capital in Tura is not merely a political slogan or administrative question but a reflection of deeper concerns regarding regional representation and governance efficiency.
The concerns of Shillong-centric governance cannot be ignored, nor can the legitimate aspirations of the Garo community be dismissed. The practical challenges – economic constraints, political resistance, and infrastructure readiness – cannot be ignored either.
The key lies in balancing fiscal responsibility with regional development, ensuring that all citizens of Meghalaya – Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo and others alike – benefit from governance that is truly representative and accessible. Whether through a full-fledged winter capital, decentralized governance hubs, or seasonal shifts in administration, the state must move beyond political indecision and work toward a model that fosters unity, efficiency, and economic prosperity.
For now, Tura’s dream of becoming a winter capital remains a work in progress. Whether this long-cherished demand will finally be fulfilled or fade into political oblivion – depends on political will, collective resolve of Meghalaya’s leaders, financial prudence, citizens and the vision for a truly inclusive Meghalaya.
(The author is Former Executive Director [ILC] of the BMS World Mission, UK, former National Executive Director [India] of Haggai Institute of Advanced Leadership, and former Asst. Programme Coordinator of North East Region Community Resources Management Project [IFAD-GOI], a Lawyer and a PhD Scholar in Management studies. Views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution.)