Editor,
Article 21A of the constitution, which was inserted through the eighty six Amendment, guarantees free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 to 14 years. It’s the obligation of the state government to ensure that every child has access to quality education which focuses on the student’s holistic development. To assess and benchmark the performance of states and union territories in school education the ministry of education Government of India in 2017 came up with Performance Grading Index (PGI). Regrettably in the latest performance grading index (PGI 2.0), Meghalaya scores poorly in almost all the domains. Reacting to this low PGI score the State Education Department has come up with a discussion paper titled, “Consolidation of Multiple Grant in Aid Schemes for Educational Institutions in Meghalaya,” which is in public domain for views, opinions and suggestions.
To better understand the data in the paper I went through the Education Department website. The first thing that I noticed was that the number of government schools are not evenly distributed among districts; in some district the number is 1,136 and in others it is as low as 140. The reason behind this disparity is not clear but it certainly is not related to the population distribution. According to data from the website the total number of government schools in Meghalaya is 3540. Of these 3540 government schools, 3271 are primary schools , which is over 92% of the total number of Government schools. The data also shows that there are only 54 government schools providing education up to the secondary level. From the results booklet of the MBOSE Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination 2025 the number of students who appeared for the above examination is 63,682. Looking at these numbers one can easily conclude that the bulk of the students who sat in the SSLC examination 2025 come from private schools. The figure will be similar for other classes too.
Although the data presented here is only for 2025 we all know that through the years private educational institutions have been instrumental in shaping the educational landscape in the state. Despite their contributions a huge gap still exists between the haves and have nots as far as accessing quality education is concerned.
In our State the socio-economic factors still play a significant role in determining access to quality education. Children from marginalised sections, rural areas, or low-income families often have limited access to quality education. It’s not the fault of a child to be born in a low income family or in far flung villages. But to deny a child quality education is a violation of his or her fundamental rights, like Right to Education and Right to Equality of Opportunities, guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the Discussion paper, one of the reasons cited for the low PGI score is the fragmentation of a single institution into smaller units. The reason for the fragmentation is to enable the institution to avail various government grants under different categories. Partly this may be true but not the only reason that led to fragmentation in some private schools. I know a few schools that run Morning section and Day section. If you drive around the city at around 6:00 am you will see what kind of children attend these morning sections. Most of them are children from villages working as domestic helpers and doing other odd jobs to finance their education. The Government initiative to merge the different units in a single school is a welcome step but it also has to ensure that funds received by those units that cater to marginalised sections are not affected.
Another reason for the low PGI scores is the unsustainable number of schools. On this the Department has already identified schools with zero enrolment and single digit enrolment. Next is the consolidation of Grant-in- Aid Schemes for private educational institutions. It’s beyond comprehension how this will improve the PGI scores or quality of education. One thing I am sure of is that funding is crucial as far as quality education is concerned. As the Discussion Paper failed to discuss the issues and challenges to improved quality education in Meghalaya it made me question whether Government is serious about the matter. It’s a dream of every parent irrespective of the economic status to see that their child receives quality education.
One of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations which was also adopted by India in 2015 is Quality Education (SDG4). This Goal prioritizes quality education that leads to relevant and effective learning outcomes. It also emphasized that all children, regardless of background, should have access to quality education, including early childhood development, primary, and secondary education. All UN member states have committed to achieving these target by 2030. Its high time for the State Government to assess where we stand as far as SDG4 is concerned.
Yours etc.,
Lobi Kurbah,
Via Email
Response to the letter – ‘Disappointing after-sales experience with Tiago EV dealership’
Editor,
Apropos of the above letter (ST May 24, 2025) written by Mr. Patrick Pugh Sawian regarding his experience following the purchase of the Tiago EV MR XE from Frank Motors on 09 March 2024, at the outset we thank Mr Sawian for his feedback. At Frank Motors, we value all customer inputs and treat them as opportunities to reflect and improve. We regret the inconvenience the customer may have faced and would like to respond with clarity on the concerns raised.
With regards to the EV subsidy, the Tiago EV purchased falls under the purview of the Meghalaya Electric Vehicle Policy 2021, notified by the Transport Department, Government of Meghalaya, 2021. As per Section 7 (7.1.3), points (i) and (ii) of the policy, the electric four wheeler subsidy is subject to certain criteria, namely, a benefit of Rs 4,000 per kWh and a maximum ex-factory price of Rs 15 lakhs, applicable to the first 2,500 eligible vehicles registered during the policy period.
We further clarify that the dealer’s role is limited to assisting customers with documentation and timely submission. In this case, Frank Motors submitted all required documents within the stipulated time. The dealership has no influence or control over the processing, approval and disbursement of the subsidy. That said, we have consistently followed up on behalf of the customer wherever possible to support the process despite it being beyond our direct purview.
On the matter of insurance renewal, the customer’s Own Damage insurance policy was valid until March 8, 2025. As per our standard practice, our team made repeated attempts to reach the customer on the registered mobile number through phone calls and WhatsApp. However, the number was found to be unreachable and inactive on WhatsApp during that period.
On March 8, 2025, we received a WhatsApp message from the customer referencing both the insurance renewal and the pending subsidy. That same day, our team also received a WhatsApp call from an international number, during which the renewal premium was clearly explained. It is likely that the query was prompted by a reminder from our insurance backend partner, TMI Insurance. During the call, both the insurance renewal and subsidy were discussed in detail. However, despite our team sharing the premium amount, no confirmation to proceed with the renewal was received from the customer.
We have verified that a total of eight insurance renewal reminders were sent to the customer on eight different dates. We are pleased to share the details for verification upon request.
While we respect the customer’s right to express dissatisfaction, we respectfully disagree with the phrase, “snake oil promises but delivering little,” used in the letter. Frank Motors has always operated with integrity, transparency and a genuine commitment to customer service. Our team has acted in good faith and strictly within the scope of the responsibilities assigned to us by policy and procedure.
We fully understand the customer’s frustration and empathise with their concerns. However, it is also important to state that the issues raised were outside our direct control. We acknowledge there may have been gaps in communication or timing and regret any inconvenience caused. Should Mr Sawian wish to further discuss or resolve any outstanding concerns, we encourage him to reach out. Our team is more than willing to engage through the appropriate and official channels to ensure a constructive resolution.
Yours etc.,
Rimika Nongrum,
Frank Motors, Laitkor