Editor,
Do the powerful see citizens as irritants? The recent CJI episode suggests how some elites view the ordinary. Many Supreme Court judges rise from highly privileged professional circles. That does not negate their competence, but it can create a perception gap.
Hence when a senior judge describes activists or unemployed youth in contemptuous terms, it is natural for many to read it through a wider lens. In a country grappling with high youth unemployment, exam scandals, precarious gig work, nepotistic networks, and shrinking faith in upward mobility, such remarks draw resentment. Beneath the controversy lies a deeper public question: What happens when citizens come to believe that elite institutions — including the judiciary — treat scrutiny, frustration, and dissent as irritants rather than as democratic participation?
Elite institutions often speak in insulated language, assuming the public will parse nuance later. But today’s media ecosystem is built to amplify velocity, symbolism, and conflict — not nuance. Outrage-driven formats also prefer personalized controversy to systemic inquiry, because personalities generate engagement while unemployment statistics do not.
The result is that both institutions and media failed the citizen, albeit differently:
· The institution appear dismissive.
· The media appear extractive.
The “cockroach” episode, then, signals something broader about contemporary democracy: public anger can become highly visible without becoming politically productive. That is the deeper loss — not merely that a controversial remark was made, but that an opening for collective self-examination was drowned out by the cacophony of outrage, entertainment, and institutional defensiveness.
Yours etc.,
Narottam Subedi,
Shillong-2
Colleges in Shillong Violating NEHU’s Admission Rules
Editor,
I want to bring to your attention a serious problem with college admissions in Shillong this year. NEHU has clearly instructed its affiliated colleges not to confirm any admissions before CUET results are declared. CUET candidates must be given priority, and non-CUET admissions can only begin five days after the results are out.
Despite this, many colleges are already confirming seats and collecting fees. They are taking advantage of anxious parents and students who fear losing a seat if they wait.
This is unfair to students who appeared for CUET trusting the university’s own rules. They are now finding that seats have already been taken.I request NEHU to step in immediately, stop colleges from making further premature admissions, cancel those already made, and ensure full refunds are given.
Rules must be followed — especially when students’ futures are at stake.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
Via email
Blatant Disregard for NEHU’s Admission Rules by Colleges in Shillong
Editor,
Through the columns of your esteemed newspaper, I wish to bring to public notice what can only be described as a deliberate and systematic disregard of university regulations by several undergraduate colleges in Shillong. NEHU has, in no uncertain terms, communicated to its affiliated institutions that the admission process must be held in abeyance until the CUET results are formally declared. The university’s directives are unambiguous — CUET candidates are to be accorded first preference in seat allotment, and admissions for non-CUET applicants may only be initiated five days after the results are published. By and large, this framework was honoured last year.
What is unfolding this year, however, is a different story altogether. Under the garb of “counselling” and “form collection” — activities that NEHU does permit prior to results — certain colleges have quietly violated the NEHU directives. They are confirming admissions, locking seats, and collecting fees from unsuspecting families. The target of this exploitation is clear: parents and students gripped by uncertainty, who are being manipulated into believing that hesitation now means losing everything later.
This is not a procedural lapse. It is a conscious subversion of a policy designed to give every eligible student a fair shot. Those who prepared sincerely for CUET, relying on the university’s own published schedule, now find themselves locked out of seats that were never legally available to begin with.
The University must act decisively. All colleges engaging in premature admissions must be directed to immediately cease such activity. Every admission confirmed before the CUET results must be annulled, and every rupee collected as fees must be returned without condition.
Rules mean nothing if their violation carries no consequence. NEHU’s credibility as a regulatory body depends on whether it chooses to enforce what it has already proclaimed.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request,
Via email
