Editor,
This is in reference to the letter titled “Politics, Principles & the Shillong By-Poll” published in the Letters to the Editor section on May 9, 2026.
While every citizen has the right to express political opinions, the published piece seemed less like balanced political commentary and more like a moral judgment on Dr D.R.L. Nonglait for choosing to enter electoral politics.
The article opens by questioning whether politics and principles can still go together, implicitly suggesting that political participation is somehow incompatible with integrity or public respect. Such broad assumptions do little to encourage healthy democratic discussion. In a mature society, people support different political parties for different reasons, whether related to governance, development, ideology, or public policy. Making political choices is part of democratic thinking and should not be used as a reason to question someone’s morality or principles.
The letter also sought to create a contrast by presenting one party’s quick declaration of a candidate as proof of “certainty and direction,” while portraying the other party’s consultative process as hesitation or disconnection from public sentiment. This interpretation is entirely subjective. In any democratic political organization, consultation, internal discussion, and consensus-building are healthy practices. Taking time for deliberation should not be mistaken for weakness or indecision. Political credibility cannot be measured simply by the speed of an announcement.
At the same time, projecting the immediate declaration of a candidate soon after the unfortunate demise of a sitting MP as unquestionable political strength also deserves balanced reflection. Democratic politics should not only be judged by how quickly decisions are announced, but also by the seriousness, inclusiveness, and depth of the decision-making process.
Equally concerning was the repeated attempt to portray Dr. Nonglait’s entry into politics as though he had somehow stepped down from a “moral space above party politics.” Meghalaya has seen Dr. Nonglait contribute to society for many years through numerous committees, public initiatives, and cultural institutions, irrespective of which political party was in power. His work has consistently reflected a commitment to the people, language, and culture of the state rather than narrow political interests.
The references to “corruption,” “administrative complacency,” and “public distrust” lack evidence, sources, or facts to support these claims. Serious accusations like these should not appear in political commentary unless backed by proof.
The question of whether Dr. Nonglait was motivated by “conviction, persuasion, ambition, or the subtle seduction of political relevance” shifted the conversation away from public issues and toward speculation about personal motives. In a democracy, people choose to enter politics for many good reasons, such as wanting to help in governance and public life. Political debates should focus on what a candidate has done, their ideas, and their contributions, instead of making assumptions about their hidden motives.
The attempt to draw a “cautionary parallel” with the late Dr Bhupen Hazarika was misplaced and intellectually unconvincing. Dr. Hazarika remains one of the most respected cultural icons of the Northeast. Reducing his immense legacy to a single political episode is historically simplistic and factually debatable. The political realities of Assam during that period and present-day Meghalaya are entirely different. The comparison seemed more emotional than analytical and unnecessarily created suspicion around democratic participation.
Most unfortunate was the suggestion that if Dr. Nonglait lost the election, he might lose the moral authority and public respect he earned over decades of service. In a democracy, contesting an election should never be seen as a moral gamble where victory preserves dignity and defeat destroys it. Electoral outcomes cannot erase a lifetime of intellectual, cultural, and public contribution.
Elections should remain contests of ideas, governance, public vision, and service to the people, not moral tests deciding who deserves respect. A healthy democracy values individuals for their sincerity, contribution, and commitment to public welfare, regardless of victory or defeat.
At a time when political discourse is becoming more polarised, the media, including letters pages, has an important responsibility to maintain fairness, proportion, and editorial balance. Editors are not expected to suppress opinions but must ensure that personal insinuations and one-sided political narratives do not overshadow fair and reasoned democratic discussion.
The people of Meghalaya are politically aware and fully capable of making their own judgments at the ballot box.
Yours etc.,
Divesh Ranjan,
Via email
