Editor,
The special article, “When Defiance Becomes Dishonesty: Standing with Law: Not Lawlessness” (ST July 4, 2025) by Lyzander E Sohkhlet is profound and timely, especially in an era where the line between principled defiance and opportunistic lawlessness is often blurred. This piece is a structured reflection on why one should stand with the law, even when defiance masquerades as virtue. Firstly, the law is a moral compass, not just a rule book. The law, at its best, embodies collective moral reasoning and social contracts. Standing with it affirms a commitment to fairness, not just convenience. When defiance becomes dishonest – driven by self-interest or misinformation it erodes trust and invites chaos disguised as resistance.
Secondly, civil disobedience, like Gandhi’s satyagraha, is rooted in transparency, sacrifice, and a higher ethical appeal which is called honest defiance. When rebellion is cloaked in lies, manipulation, or selective outrage, it ceases to be noble- it becomes corrosive and this is called dishonest defiance.
Thirdly, the law often protects those without voice or power. Undermining it under the guise of “freedom” can leave the marginalized defenceless. Without legal norms, might makes right – and history shows how quickly that leads to tyranny.
Fourthly, upholding the law even when inconvenient builds credibility and moral authority, especially in governance and diplomacy. Dishonest defiance may yield momentary applause but often leads to institutional decay and public cynicism. A Litmus Test: Is the defiance transparent, accountable and altruistic? If not, it is likely not resistance – it is opportunism.
Lyzander Sohkhlet is absolutely right in saying that, “The Government of Meghalaya, through representatives like Paul Lyngdoh and Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong, has taken concrete steps to resolve this issue with fairness. A legitimate vending zone has been created in the MUDA complex and other venues.” The Supreme Court in 1989 had rightly said “vendors do not have an absolute right to trade on public roads if it causes obstruction.” The author is absolutely correct when he says, “This is not about targeting livelihoods. It is about restoring order. The vendors who have accepted relocation have shown maturity and respect for the law. Those who threaten officials and resist verification are not engaging in protest. They are breaking the law.
Let us be honest. The streets of Shillong cannot continue to function as informal marketplaces without endangering lives. The Government has tried dialogue. It is now enforcing the law. It is it’s right to do so. If public order collapses, the most vulnerable always suffer first. And if those enforcing the law are vilified, the rule of law becomes meaningless.” Sohkhlet’s last paragraph is a right note that speaks louder than words.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
Rejoinder to Lyzander E Sohkhlets article
Editor,
To state that the current hawkers imbroglio at Khyndai Lad was being watched with growing concern by a bemused Shillong citizenry is to make an understatement. The narrative presented to the public so far has been rather one sided. The popular story portrayed is that of a people’s resistance against state sponsored atrocities against the livelihood of the poor; that the real enemy is the establishment ( in this particular instance the Government, Shillong Municipal Board and the Police) that is using brute force against the interests of poor ordinary people. What was slowly being built up through such narratives was a Marxist ideology of a typical class war in the offing with the poor being encouraged to even take up arms and resort to violence to defend their dignity and livelihood ( that video of a hawker with an axe says it all). The expectation from certain quarters was perhaps for an armed uprising/revolution of sorts to happen. The word “bemused” is deliberately used above because a majority of people genuinely doubted if the story being presented was really the truth. Then as a ray of light and hope came Lyzander E Sohkhlet’s Op Ed “When Defiance becomes Dishonesty : Standing with Law; Not Lawlessness” (ST July 4th 2025). It is an attempt to present the other side of the coin. It makes a rather convincing read. Let’s try and see what it had to say.
I find the write up based on facts, logic and sheer down to earth commonsense, shorn of all ideological agendas and one that approaches the problem from the general public’s perspective and interest rather than just the one sided version by a few. So lets try and tick mark the sensible and logical issues the article highlights . It speaks of the lawless effects of unregulated street vending (ü) That the Police, the SMB and the Govt are not agents of oppression but institutions tasked with upholding order, safety and fairness in public spaces (ü) that when streets meant for everyone are hijacked by a few, the state has not only the right but the duty to act and ensure justice for all (ü)That a story of rehabilitation backed by viable alternatives; liberal rupee allowances; and two thousand rupees for five months also exists, different from the narrative of victimhood being presented (ü) that romanticising “Defiance of the law” is not only irresponsible but downright dangerous (ü) The poor do not benefit from chaos they suffer more from it (ü) The streets of Shillong cannot continue to function as informal markets without endangering lives (ü).The Govt is not the villain here. Instead it is the only institution STILL trying to hold things together(ü).
Thank you Lyzander! As citizens of this once beautiful walkable city, we have learned a lot from your practical and reasonable observations. We appreciate the courage of our educated young people who are not afraid to come out and speak their minds. I hope and wish your Op-Ed article acts as an encouragement for others of your ilk to follow your example. We sorely need such open debates for a healthy society.
I would like to end by making my own observations on the chaos, confusion and downfall of a society that applies inappropriate solutions to its problems. I take recourse to history and cite the example of Kolkata. Upto the mid 1970s Kolkata or Calcutta was a “must visit destination” in SE Asia. It was a vibrant, dynamic society where genteel Bengalee culture, academics and fun co-existed cheek by jowl. Then came the CPI (Marxists) led Left Front Govt and in the span of 34 years of communist misrule Kolkata was completely destroyed. But they too started off with the noble intention of eradicating poverty and injustice from society. But instead of uplifting the poor they resorted to the Marxist strategy of bringing everybody else down to the level of the poor! It resulted in irreversible disaster. Today the same recipe for a catastrophe is being offered by some for the city of Shillong. It’s up to the people of Shillong to decide what they want to be. Another failed Kolkata or to regain the fresh, carefree enjoyable walking spaces we once enjoyed as free citizens of this beautiful hill station.
Yours etc.,
Toki Blah,
Via email