Editor,
The hypocrisy is unbearable. The probe is on, but what is it probing? Not the drug peddlers who poison the streets. Not the addicts who rob, assault, and even kill for drug money. The probe is against the very people who stood up when the system refused to. How can this be justice? How can defenders be treated as criminals while offenders are ignored? Authorities preach that the public must not take the law into their own hands. The authorities label it illegal, as if the law itself matters when it is selectively enforced. To call this illegal while failing to enforce justice is not law. This is blatant hypocrisy and it is a betrayal of every citizen who dares to demand safety.
They say there are proper channels, proper procedures, proper systems. But where do these channels lead? To silence? To neglect? To nothing? A few months back, I properly reported the drug peddling and weed-selling at Paltan Bazar behind Iewduh and yet to this day no action has been taken. What is the use of a system that records complaints only to bury them? Why speak of law when the law itself is applied selectively? And even when drug addicts or peddlers are arrested, how long do they really stay behind bars? A few weeks, sometimes a few months, rarely even a year, before they are back on the same streets repeating the same crimes. What justice is this? What protection does this offer the public? How are families supposed to feel secure when those who threaten them are returned so quickly to society? How many assaults, how many robberies, how many lives must be put at risk while this cycle plays on? If the system cannot even keep offenders away for good, then what purpose does it serve? What is the meaning of an arrest that changes nothing?
The selectivity is clear to us. For instance, the police act quickly when it comes to modified vehicles, tinted windows, or noisy exhausts. That is something they can do with confidence and speed. But where is the same urgency for drug abuse and peddling? Why is the full force of the law thrown at people with modified bikes and cars while drug dealers walk free? Why is it easier to harass the harmless than to confront the dangerous? Why do the authorities only enforce the law when it is easy for them? And while they look away, fear spreads. Families are left to wonder when addicts will strike again. Communities live with the threat of being robbed, assaulted, or even killed by those desperate for drug money. How long should the public remain silent? How long should parents fear for their children’s safety? How long should citizens wait for protectors who refuse to protect?
This is why vigilantism rises. It does not come from chaos but from abandonment. When the law turns its back, the people have no choice but to stand up. Should they simply allow drugs to destroy their communities? Should they stay passive while their safety and the safety of children is ripped apart? Vigilantism is not a rejection of the law. No. It is a desperate reaction to a law that is absent and yet, instead of recognising this truth, the authorities attack the very people who defended their communities. They praise procedure while punishing courage. They condemn vigilantism while ignoring the failures that created it. What kind of justice protects the guilty and strikes the innocent? What kind of system probes defenders while shielding dealers?
If vigilantism exists, it is because the authorities have failed to do their duty. If anger spreads, it is because trust has already been broken. If the people rise, it is because they have been left without protection. Until the police confront the drug menace in Meghalaya with the same energy they waste on petty fines, every word they speak will remain hollow. Every condemnation will remain hypocrisy. Every probe against the people will remain proof of their failure.
I speak out because I exercise my freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. I use this right to expose the truth, to challenge hypocrisy, and to demand accountability and I will not apologize for it. When the law abandons its duty and protects the guilty while punishing the brave, it is not only my right but my responsibility to raise my voice. Speaking the truth is not a crime. Remaining silent in the face of failure and injustice would be far worse.
Yours etc.,
Mebaphylla Rymshon,
Via email
Of reckless driving
Editor,
Through the columns of your esteemed daily, I would like to draw the kind attention of the concerned authorities and the general public towards the issue of reckless motor-cycles drivers from Mawlai to Bhoi every Sunday. This leads to frequent accidents. Reckless drivers drive their motorcycles at high speed and don’t seem to care about their own lives and that of others as well. Accidents have become a regular news. Most drivers couldn’t care less about their driving .They don’t follow traffic rules .Traffic Police are inactive. Under-aged youngsters drive motorcycles without a driving licence; they have no knowledge of traffic rules. Hence urgent steps should be taken on reckless drivers.
Under-aged drivers should be punished. The Government should take speedy action on this matter. They should make strict traffic rules that every person should follow. Licenses of all should be checked regularly so that under-aged people are not allowed to drive and if caught they should be made to pay a heavy penalty.
Yours etc.,
Hilarius Umdor,
Via email
New vision for India-China engagement
Editor,
On September 1, 2025, The Shillong Times carried a thought-provoking article by Dr. Alex Waterman titled ‘’Importance of the Line of Amity.” In it, he offers a refreshing and deeply human perspective on the India-China border issue. Inspired by Jaideep Saikia, Waterman urges us to re-imagine the boundary not as a ‘Line of Control’ marked by suspicion and hostility, but as a ‘Line of Amity’ grounded in trust, cooperation, and shared humanity.
This vision challenges the conventional notion of borders as barriers. It asks us to see our neighbours not as rivals across a frontier but as partners bound by common geography, history, and aspirations. Borders are more than just lines on maps—they shape the daily lives of millions who yearn for peace, dignity, and opportunities for a brighter future.
Waterman acknowledges that achieving such a transformation will not be easy. Genuine trust cannot be built overnight. Symbolic gestures must be matched with real actions: joint initiatives, cultural exchanges, open dialogue, and people-to-people connections. Yet, as he reminds us, even the smallest steps have the power to spark profound change.
In today’s global climate–where wars rage in several regions, mistrust deepens between nations, and fear often overshadows goodwill–the idea of a Line of Amity shines as a beacon of hope. If such a vision were realised, borders could become bridges of understanding rather than scars of division. Soldiers would stand not as rivals in arms but as guardians of harmony. Nations would compete in innovation, culture, and human progress instead of hostility. Children would grow free of inherited fear, discovering the joy of friendship across frontiers.
The Line of Amity may begin as an idea, but pursued with patience and sincerity, it could become a lasting legacy of peace for generations to come.
Yours etc.,
Jairaj Chhetry,
Tura