The Government is not the sole repository of wisdom. Normally governments engage in crisis management and hardly have the time to think long term. In such a scenario it is important for the Government to discuss thorny issues with citizens who are willing to engage in policy objectives that can redeem the state from its burgeoning problems. Take the example of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) which has created a crisis of sorts in the state today. A similar crisis afflicted the students and their parents a year ago in 2024 when NEHU conducted the CUET. Following that misadventure the situation should have been discussed and the loopholes for that fiasco should have been identified so that they are not repeated. But once the CUET was done and dusted for that year everything was forgotten until it arrived with a bang this year as well and left the whole state facing another CUET crisis.
Now that the Government has written to the National Testing Agency (NTA) it is learnt that the CUET would be held in certain institutions in Meghalaya which have enough computer support systems. The question is why this attempt to find solutions was not thought of since last year so that 2025 would not see students facing the same crisis all over again. Without the Government’s initiative, concerned citizens, particularly those familiar with such testing models and leaders in education should have, on their own called for a meeting to discuss the matter and then taken their suggestions to the Government, asking it to study the feasibility of such suggestions/recommendations and to get the NTA to agree to such possible solutions. This is how democracy is meant to function. The Government does not have all the answers to citizens’ problems and would, if engaged be willing to put its weight behind such citizen efforts.
This citizens’ engagement is not just about CUET. It can be on any governance issue. When citizens sense that things are not working they should be engaging in a process of finding out where the problem lies and what the solutions are. For instance, those who complain of poor quality water supply in Municipal areas should be engaging with the Shillong Municipal Board (SMB) and finding out the reasons for the problem. The SMB is under the Department of Urban Affairs; not under the Public Health Engineering (PHE)Department. Why the SMB should be burdened with water supply is a legacy of the past which should have been rectified. It is important that all water-related issues be tackled by the PHED so that there is proper focus and citizens know who to approach for what. A citizens’ think-tank is a much-needed public body in Meghalaya. This would also expose citizens to the burden of governance and to be active partners in the process rather than spectators watching from the sidelines.
