Editor,
The border between India and Bangladesh, stretching across the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, is not just a line on a map. It is a fragile space where cultures meet, opportunities clash, and human struggles unfold. Each day we are bombarded by news images of locals aiding illegal crossings, of cattle and goods being smuggled under cover of darkness, and of border guards stretched thin. To the outside observer, this looks like betrayal or negligence. But standing closer, it becomes clear this is not just about greed, but about a difficult balance between survival and security.
So the question remains: Whose fault is it?
The Locals: Between Poverty and Complicity
For many villagers along the border, agriculture no longer provides a secure future. Broomstick, betel nut, and other traditional crops fetch unstable prices in local markets. Worse, younger generations see little reason to invest their labour in farming when the state fails to guarantee fair prices. And what of those who neither possess land nor own property at all?
In this context, smuggling appears as a quick and reliable source of income. Helping Bangladeshis cross the border or transporting cattle across the pillars brings in instant cash in ways cultivation cannot. But while survival explains the choice, complicity cannot be denied. These actions risk not only the security of the border but also the dignity and safety of our own local people.
Government’s Policy Failures and Silence
It is easy to blame the border villagers, but where has the government been? Agricultural policies remain weak, with little support for farmers. Storage, pricing, and transport infrastructure are neglected. Young people find no incentive to pursue farming or any related ethical trade.
The Dorbar Shnong, the traditional village council, remains underutilized as a platform for awareness and collective responsibility. If the government truly wished to stem smuggling, it would engage directly with the Dorbar, strengthen markets, and provide villagers with alternative sources of livelihood. Instead, silence and inaction dominate.
When Tight Measures Bring New Dangers
It cannot be denied that the Border Security Force (BSF) faces the enormous task of guarding vast stretches of the frontier. But it often happens that when security tightens and smuggling comes to a halt, a new, darker pattern emerges – retaliation from across the border.
During heavy rains or under cover of night, groups of Bangladeshis slip into Indian villages, looting cattle, betel nut stocks, motorbikes, mobile phones, and sometimes even basic belongings like T-shirts and footwear. The very Indian border villagers that once acted as “partners” in smuggling now find themselves the victims of raids carried out from across the border.
This vicious cycle shows that security alone cannot resolve the crisis. Without addressing the roots of poverty and demand, enforcement risks triggering new forms of violence. Land ports alone will not suffice. Where are the inter-border markets that once balanced these pressures?
Society at Large: Silent Witnesses
And what about the wider Khasi-Jaintia society? Too often, the issue is dismissed as “a border problem,” distant and irrelevant to those in the towns and cities. This silence is a form of complicity. Government departments, student pressure groups, and church bodies rarely engage with the issue in sustained ways, leaving border communities isolated in their struggles.
The truth is, what happens along the border affects us all – economically, politically, and culturally. Turning a blind eye only allows the problem to grow unchecked.
So, Whose Fault Is It? And where does the blame fall?
The answer is uncomfortable but clear: fault is shared. And the question itself is no longer simply, “Whose fault is it?” but rather, “Who among us will finally act?”
Yours etc.,
Sunrise Pohtam, M.Th,
Via email
Free Speech for Some?
Editor,
The recent statement by Dr. Mukul Sangma, former Chief Minister (reported in The Shillong Times, 22nd August 2025), about educated youth joining rebel groups and getting training has rightly caught public attention. As a top political leader, what he says matters not just for what it reveals, but also for what it means for the state’s peace and governance.
Such information is important for people to know, and leaders must be free to speak up. But it also raises a serious question: If an ordinary person-a journalist, activist, or student leader had said the same thing, would they be treated the same? Or would they be questioned by police, arrested, or even charged under strict anti-terror or national security laws?
This difference in treatment is worrying. When powerful politicians speak, it is often called “political speech.” But when common people or critics say something similar, they are often called “anti-national” or accused of supporting violence. This double standard harms the idea that everyone is equal before the law. It also makes people lose trust in systems meant to protect both our safety and our basic rights.
In a healthy democracy like ours, freedom of speech should not be a privilege only for those in power. Yes, national security is important. But it should not be used as a tool to silence voices that do not have political backing. Everyone no matter their position should have the right to speak, question, and hold leaders accountable.
We must balance free speech and security fairly. In a real democracy, everyone, not just the powerful, should have a voice. Let us include all citizens in the conversation, not to fear, but to strengthen democracy.
Yours etc.,
Tynshain K Lyngdoh,
Via email