Editor,
I write to wholeheartedly endorse the article “Much Ado About Signalling” by Ellerine Diengdoh, published in The Shillong Times on April 23, 2025 (https://theshillongtimes.com/2025/04/23/much-ado-about-signalling/). The piece brilliantly captures the chaotic misuse of vehicle indicators in Shillong, where drivers signal left while turning right (or vice versa) or neglect signals entirely, fostering confusion and jeopardizing road safety. Its humorous yet incisive tone underscores a pressing issue in our city’s traffic culture.
My personal observations trace the roots of this problem to truck drivers who, years ago, began using right indicators when stopping on narrow, curvy, dimly lit roads to alert others to watch their side. This practice, initially a safety measure, was later adopted by truck drivers and handymen who transitioned to owning and operating taxis. Over time, it became common for taxi drivers to misuse right indicators when moving left or stopping in narrow lanes—often in no-embarkation zones—to pick up passengers. In recent years, some of these drivers have established driving schools, unintentionally standardizing this erroneous signalling practice. As a result, many new drivers in Shillong now replicate these mistakes, having been taught no differently.
Compounding this issue, the city’s Traffic authorities have turned a blind eye to the misuse of hazard signals at crossings and junctions for vehicles moving straight ahead, further muddying the proper use of indicators. Hazard lights, meant for stationary or broken-down vehicles or emergency situations, are ill-suited for a commute and add to the confusion highlighted in Ms. Diengdoh’s article.
I must commend Mr P S Warjri, former president of the Royal Enfield Riders’ Association of Meghalaya (RERAM), who has been a forerunner in addressing this malpractice for over a decade. Through road safety rallies, engagements at rider meetings, and social media advocacy, Mr. Warjri has leveraged his influence to educate motorists and highlight the dangers of improper signalling, inspiring many to push for change.
I urge the authorities to address these issues by promoting correct indicator use through public awareness campaigns, proper enforcement of traffic rules, and ensuring driving schools teach standard signalling practices. The Shillong Times deserves praise for spotlighting this matter, and I hope it catalyses meaningful reform.
Yours etc.,
Benny Field Lyngdoh,
Via email
Conflict and tension affect both Pakistan and India in the long term
Editor,
Apropos of the editorial “Aftermath of Pahalgam Terror Attack” (ST April, 26 2025) Pakistan has labelled India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty as an “act of war,” emphasizing the treaty’s importance for its water security. However, experts argue that international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, allows for suspension in cases of fundamental change in circumstances, such as repeated terror attacks. India has framed the move as a diplomatic response to cross-border terrorism, not a declaration of war. The London-based lawyer Dharminder Singh Kaleka explained that “suspension” and “abeyance” are different in “tone and in teeth.” While suspension is a formal legal measure governed by international law, “abeyance, by contrast, is a tool of strategic ambiguity – it freezes the operational mechanics of the treaty without triggering its collapse.” “In effect, India is saying: We have not torn the treaty up but we are not playing by the old rules either, not until the rules of engagement with terrorism are rewritten by Pakistan,” Kaleka, a policy expert specialising in South Asian economies, geopolitics and development strategy, said. India late Wednesday night announced that the treaty will be held in “abeyance” with immediate effect until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism. In fact, India could freely plan to divert 5-miillion-acre feet (MAF) of water from the western rivers Jhelum or Chenab to the eastern rivers Ravi, Beas or Sutlej. This will not affect Pakistan because about 20 MAF of water or more is going to sea in Pakistan as unused water. It may be noted that the 1960 treaty was brokered by the World Bank between India and Pakistan covering the use of the rivers in the Indus Basin. It allows India “unrestricted use” of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, the three eastern rivers in the Indus Basin, and similar rights to Pakistan over the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, the three western rivers.
Since economics serves as the backbone of national progress without peace and cooperation, efforts to build robust economies often falter. The relationship between Pakistan and India is a prime example where mutual trust and collaboration could unlock immense potential. Both the countries are endowed with resources, strategic locations and skilled populations, but persistent tensions divert focus from shared economic and developmental opportunities. One could argue that fostering trade partnerships, energy collaborations and cultural exchanges could pave the way for economic growth and stability. Over time, peace could transform the region into a hub of innovation and prosperity. Imagine how much both countries could achieve if they redirected resources away from conflict and towards collaboration. The challenge is complex, but history has shown us that peace is always worth striving for.
The long-term impacts of ongoing tit-for-tat measures between India and Pakistan could be profound and multifaceted. Both nations may face significant economic repercussions. Trade restrictions, border closures, and diplomatic tensions can hinder economic growth, disrupt regional trade and deter foreign investment. India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty and Pakistan’s retaliatory measures could escalate water-related conflicts. This may lead to long-term challenges in water management and agricultural productivity, especially for Pakistan, which heavily relies on the Indus River system. The heightened tensions could lead to increased military spending and focus on defence capabilities, diverting resources from development priorities. The strained relations may destabilise South Asia, affecting neighbouring countries and regional organizations. It could also impact global perceptions of the region’s stability.
Persistent conflicts may isolate both nations diplomatically, making it harder to build alliances or gain international support on critical issues. Prolonged hostility can exacerbate humanitarian issues, including displacement, loss of lives, and strained cross-border familial ties. The focus on conflict rather than cooperation may prevent both nations from leveraging their shared cultural and economic potential for mutual benefit. These impacts underscore the importance of dialogue and cooperation to avoid long-term damage.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh
Via email