Coal Today, Consequences Tomorrow
Editor,
There is something truly inspiring about the urgency with which some groups and political voices are demanding the return of rat-hole coal mining. Their message is clear: why waste time thinking about tomorrow when we can extract everything today?
After all, the coal beneath our hills has been waiting patiently for us. It would be unfair to leave any of it underground for future generations. Our children and grandchildren might accidentally inherit clean rivers, healthy forests, and natural resources and we surely cannot allow such an irresponsible tradition to continue.
Perhaps the ban should be removed immediately. Let this generation take every last advantage. Let the trucks roll, the pits expand, and the hills disappear. And when future generations ask what happened to their natural heritage, we can proudly tell them: “We used it all. You’re welcome.”
For decades, vast quantities of coal were extracted from Meghalaya. But after all the digging, the question remains uncomfortable: where exactly is the great prosperity that coal was supposed to bring to ordinary people?
If coal mining had truly transformed the lives of local communities, mining areas would today be shining examples of development with excellent schools, modern healthcare facilities, strong roads, sustainable jobs, and thriving economies. Instead, many communities were left with the environmental costs while the financial benefits were concentrated elsewhere. The coal went out. The wealth went somewhere. The problems stayed behind.
The ban on rat-hole mining was criticised by many, but it also gave our damaged environment a chance to recover. Rivers that had suffered from years of pollution began to show signs of healing. Nature, in its quiet and stubborn way, proved something that we often forget: rivers do not need political speeches, they need protection.
Of course, livelihoods matter. Development matters. People need opportunities. But calling unlimited extraction “development” is like celebrating someone for selling the roof of their house because they needed money for dinner. It may solve today’s problem, but it creates a much bigger one tomorrow. Natural resources are not private treasure chests belonging to one generation. They are a trust passed from those before us to those who come after us. We are not owners of the earth; we are temporary caretakers with a responsibility. Coal may bring quick money, but it cannot replace a river once it is poisoned, a forest once it is destroyed, or a landscape once it is permanently scarred. So perhaps the question should not be, “How much coal can we extract?”
Perhaps the wiser question is: “How much damage are we willing to leave behind?”
Because future generations will not judge us by how much coal we removed from the ground. They will judge us by whether we had the wisdom to leave something valuable behind.
Yours etc.,
Tynshain K Lyngdoh
Via email
Why the Bogeyman of ‘Outsiders’
Editor,
The terms “outsiders” and “influx” are repeatedly invoked in public and political debates across Meghalaya. However, no enacted law of Meghalaya or any Act/Rule defines these expressions.
The repeated use of these terms would have been understandable if there were compelling empirical evidence of large-scale illegal migration from foreign territory into Meghalaya or settlement of non -tribals from other Indian states bypassing the land transfer act. However, the official statistics present a completely different picture. Only 688 illegal Bangladeshi nationals were caught in the five years period from 2021 to February 2026 as informed by the deputy chief minister in the Assembly which cannot be viewed as alarming considering the 443 Km of porous international border. In respect of land ownership in 1972, tribals owned nearly 95–97% of land which remained static as on date. This demonstrates that the existing constitutional and statutory safeguards, have been effective in protecting both tribal land and the demographic character of the State and there is no justification for an archaic ILP. Therefore, the expressions “outsiders” and “influx” are nothing but socio-political rhetoric aimed at particular group of people rather than enforceable legal concepts. Such rhetoric risks creating an unwarranted sense of suspicion towards permanent non-tribal residents of Meghalaya as well as fellow Indian citizens from other States, despite there being no legal basis for treating them as “outsiders.” By the same logic, should the residents of Meghalaya travelling, working or settling in other parts of India be branded as an “outsider” and such movement treated as “influx”? Such an approach is contrary to the constitutional vision of India and should be stopped forthwith.
Yours etc.,
NK Kehar,
Shillong-3
The Destitute Families Left Behind Deserve Compensation
Editor,
The death of five people at Nongrah was unfortunate and a loss that can be felt and understood only by the family members. What is even more unfortunate is the death of the two brothers, Sunil Thakuri and Umesh Thakuri who rushed to help the three labourers trapped inside an underground water reservoir while they were cleaning it. It is indeed especially painful for the two men who rushed to the spot to help out of humanitarian concerns. All that mattered to the two was to help fellow human beings irrespective of who they may have been. They did not seem to have thought twice before lending a helping hand that took away their lives.
What is even more devastating is the glaring truth that the tragedy does not end with the loss of lives but it has left behind aged parents, a younger brother and two young children to confront an uncertain and painful future. They are now left to fend for themselves to survive.
At this hour the plight and condition of the family members of the deceased can only be imagined. While compensation should be extended to the family members by the contractor and house owner as the incident occurred at a private construction site the case should be further investigated to unravel the truth. The culprit should be apprehended and dealt with strictly by the court of law. As the incident does not fall within the categories covered by the State Disaster Response Fund, they are not eligible for ex-gratia assistance. The only hope for the grieving family is perhaps through the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund which may extend financial assistance on humanitarian grounds to help them rebuild their lives. No financial aid can replace the loss of precious lives on that fateful evening but any form of financial assistance will certainly help ease the lives of those who are dependent on those now dead and gone.
While nothing can replace the lives lost, financial assistance and support can help ease the burden they have left behind. Let us hope that justice prevails and the bereaved family finds the strength they need to rebuild their lives.
Yours etc.,
Jenniefer Dkhar,
Via email
