Editor,
The recent statement by the VPP supremo at a low-attended public meeting at Yawmusiang, Jowai that his acceptance of Christianity and the Bible teaches him to love his own community calls for a clear and honest response. Faith can guide personal values, but it should not be used as a political tool to define or prioritise one community over others.
Let us be clear: the Bible does not speak about the Khasi or Jaintia people. Its history is centred on the Israelites, in a completely different time and place, far removed from the indigenous realities of Northeast India. To say that the Bible teaches political loyalty to one’s own tribe is not just a misunderstanding-it is a distortion.
Christianity, at its core, is universal. It teaches love for all, not just for one’s own group. True faith encourages compassion beyond boundaries, not selective support for a particular community. Using it to justify community-based politics reduces an important religion into a narrow political tool.
More importantly, the Khasi and Jaintia people already have strong moral foundations. Long before Christianity arrived, indigenous belief systems like Niamtre and Niam Khasi had well-established values- respect for nature, and responsibility toward the community. These values are not borrowed; they are part of our own heritage.
The real concern is not someone’s personal faith, but how that faith is used in politics. This is where a line must be drawn. When religion is used to define political identity, it creates division, excludes others, and weakens the plural nature of our society.
It is also important to consider where this statement was made. Speaking at a public gathering in Yawmusiang, Jowai where the majority follow Niamtre and choosing to highlight Christianity in a political message raises a fair question: what was the intention? Was it meant to unite people, or does it suggest that one belief is being placed above others in a shared public space?
In a diverse society, leaders must be sensitive to context. When religion is highlighted in places where other belief systems are deeply rooted, it can be seen not as guidance, but as a political signal. Such situations call for careful words, not strong assertions especially when they may disturb social harmony.
Meghalaya is not a theocratic state. It is home to many beliefs-Christian, Hindu, Niamtre, Niam Khasi, Islam, and others all equally valid. Political leadership should focus on constitutional values, mutual respect, and inclusive governance, not religious messaging.
Faith is a personal matter. Community identity comes from history and culture. Politics should not mix the two. Any attempt to combine religion with tribal political identity is not only misguided -it is socially risky.
Yours etc.,
Dr. Omarlin Kyndiah,
Via email
VPP Missing When It Matters Most
Editor,
The recent decision by the Voice of the People Party (VPP) to abstain from the All-Party Meeting convened on the Report of the Expert Committee on State Reservation Policy raises serious concerns about its commitment towards one of the most sensitive and significant issues affecting the State and its people.
The reservation policy debate has, for years, remained a major political and social issue. It has repeatedly been projected by several political leaders as a matter of justice, representation, and balance among communities. Public meetings, statements, protests, and political campaigns were carried out vigorously in the name of protecting the interests of the people. However, when a crucial opportunity finally arose to discuss the matter at the highest level through an official all-party platform, the decision of the party to stay away from the meeting sends a deeply disappointing message.
Elected representatives are entrusted with the responsibility of voicing the concerns and aspirations of the people. Such responsibilities cannot be selectively exercised based on convenience or political calculations. If the Voice of the People Party genuinely considers the reservation policy issue important, then participation in a formal discussion convened by the Government should have been treated as a priority rather than an inconvenience.
The explanation that the timing was “not conducive” due to other pressing issues appears inadequate considering the gravity of the matter. Governance always involves handling multiple important issues simultaneously. That is precisely why leaders are elected — to ensure that critical matters are addressed through dialogue, negotiation, and representation. Avoiding such meetings only weakens the democratic process and deprives the people of having their concerns articulated effectively before decision-makers. More importantly, refusing to attend such a significant meeting reflects poorly on political leadership and administrative seriousness. It raises questions about whether the issue was genuinely pursued in the interest of the people or merely used as a political talking point. When leaders repeatedly assure the public that they are fighting for a cause, they must demonstrate that commitment during decisive moments. Missing an opportunity to participate in discussions of this magnitude can only be viewed as political irresponsibility and incompetence.
All-party meetings are not mere formalities. They serve as important democratic platforms where differing viewpoints are presented, debated, and considered before major decisions are taken. Such forums ensure that every voice is heard and that policies evolve through consultation rather than unilateral action. Participation is therefore essential, even when disagreements exist. Constructive engagement often yields better outcomes than political absence. If there were concerns regarding the report, the proper course of action would have been to attend the meeting, present objections, suggest amendments, and strongly defend the interests of the people. Boycotting the process achieves little and risks isolating the very communities whose interests leaders claim to protect.
At a time when people expect maturity, accountability, and active representation from their elected leaders, such missed opportunities are unfortunate. Important matters concerning the future of the State should rise above political hesitation and require sincere participation from all stakeholders. Democracy functions best when leaders choose dialogue over absence and responsibility over excuses.
Yours etc;
Ferdinand Syiem,
Via email
Taking the Shillong LitFest to Delhi
Editor,
Shillong Literary Festival 2026 – New Delhi Prelude is scheduled for May 8 and 9, 2026, at Bikaner House, Pandara Road, New Delhi
At a time when regional voices often struggle for national visibility, the announcement of The Shillong Literary Festival 2026 – A New Delhi Prelude comes as a refreshing and timely intervention. It is not merely an event; it is a statement—one that places the literary and cultural wealth of Meghalaya firmly on the wider national canvas.
The spotlight on scholars like Dr Barbara S. Sangma adds both credibility and depth to the initiative. Her work on Garo literature, folk theatre, and cultural studies represent the lived narratives and intellectual traditions of the region—voices that deserve far greater space in mainstream discourse.
What makes this initiative particularly significant is its outreach. By taking the festival beyond Shillong to New Delhi, the organisers have effectively built a cultural bridge, opening doors for dialogue, recognition, and inclusion. In today’s context, such platforms are not just desirable—they are necessary.
Yours etc.,
Jairaj,
Via email
West Bengal Assembly Elections a Watershed Moment
Editor,
The 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections mark a watershed moment in the state’s political history. The verdict delivered by the people reflects both rejection of tyranny of TMC and a reaffirmation of democratic values. The peaceful conduct of the polls, unprecedented in over five decades, underscores the effectiveness of institutional safeguards and the resilience of India’s democratic framework. Celebrations by government employees, police personnel, and ordinary citizens suggest relief and a sense of liberation from authoritarian regime unprecedented in the annals of Indian political history since independence. Deployment of Central Armed Police Forces and strict monitoring ensured fairness of the electoral process and safety of the electorates. The people’s verdict, coupled with the Election Commission’s success in ensuring a peaceful conduct of election, has reaffirmed the vitality of India’s democracy. This moment should be leveraged to strengthen governance, uphold constitutional values, and deepen citizens’ trust in democratic institutions.
Yours etc.,
D. Bhattacharjee
Shillong- 1
