Negative Consequences of Politicizing Culture on the Federation
Editor,
In his editorial published in The Shillong Times titled, “Inviting Assam CM Himanta Sarma to Behdeinkhlam leaves a bad taste in the mouth,” Bhogtoram Mawroh decided to use culture for political gains. This was done at the expense of ignoring the very essence of Indian federalism: economic development and politics must not be held hostage to local disputes.
Applying this logic uniformly will bring all wheels of inter-state commerce, industrial growth, and academia spinning to a standstill in India.
Take for instance the recent case of a high-level government delegation led by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, Conrad Sangma, visiting Genome Valley in Hyderabad, Telangana, to witness first-hand developments in biotechnology, healthcare, and life sciences. Would it be justified for the activists in Telangana to have obstructed this industry visit?
Definitely yes, according to Mr. Mawroh’s thinking. The activists could have pointed out the long history of extreme discrimination and acts of violence carried out against non-tribal people, within the premises of Shillong itself. They could have brought up the case of Lawsohtun in 2020 when a group of non-tribal boys playing basketball were shut in the court and beaten up with iron rods and sticks, an act widely condemned even by veteran journalist Patricia Mukhim.
Likewise, the 2019 incident involving NIT Meghalaya could also be cited since the minor fight soon developed into an all-out locals versus outsiders altercation. Given that many students studying in NIT Meghalaya are from the Telugu-speaking region, the matter was of particular significance to Telangana. In this incident, a bus belonging to the college full of students who were not natives of the area was pelted with stones by people affiliated with the local student’s union as it entered the Mawlai area dominated by tribals.
If the people of Telangana had prevented Chief Minister Sangma from visiting the Genome Valley by using these incidents where Telugu students were targeted, people could well term such actions as ridiculous and detrimental to the nation’s development. However, this very discriminatory policy is what the writer wishes to impose on Meghalaya’s cultural festivals.
Behdeinkhlam festival is highly spiritual in nature aimed at overcoming evil and bringing peace. Inviting a Chief Minister from another state showed the real spirit of hospitality and diplomacy of the Sein Raij. Disputes at the borders, however old and bitter, can always be sorted out through continuous and high-level political negotiations and not by isolating other states from your cultural events.
What is more, the attempt of the author to present a wholly antagonistic image of the neighbouring community’s government does not hold its ground within the wider regional perspective. As Mawroh discusses territorial problems such as Bodoland, it is important to maintain borders. Calling for a separate state or autonomy is a legitimate part of political discussions within a democracy, but utilizing historical sub-nationalist discourse to support aggression towards neighbouring states is likely to lead to sympathizing with troublemakers.
Being a leader is all about compartmentalization. If leaders only associate themselves with people with whom they do not have disagreements, then there would be no exchange between any two states in India. Himanta Biswa Sarma’s invitation does not mean betrayal of the border people, but rather signifies maturity. Disconnecting Meghalaya from any leaders from outside and undermining the culture of the state will not solve the border problem.
Yours etc.,
Hrishikesh Raychaudhuri,
Via email
Places of Worship Have No Place on Government Office Premises
Editor,
The recent locking of an under-construction temple within the premises of the CBI office by the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) has once again brought into focus an important constitutional question: Should places of worship be constructed on public property, especially within government office premises?
This issue should not be viewed through the lens of religion. It is about the constitutional character of the Indian State and the proper use of public property.
India is a secular republic. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion under Article 25. However, this right is not absolute. Article 25 itself makes religious freedom subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Equally important, it does not confer a right to construct a place of worship on government land.
Government offices exist to serve citizens irrespective of religion, caste, or belief. Their premises are public property maintained from taxpayers’ money and should remain religiously neutral. The presence of a temple, church, mosque, or any other place of worship within a government office creates an impression that the State is favouring one religion over another, which is inconsistent with the secular spirit of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the issue of unauthorised religious structures on public land, has repeatedly expressed concern over the encroachment of public spaces. In Union of India v. State of Gujarat (2009), the Court directed all States and Union Territories not to permit unauthorised construction of temples, churches, mosques, or other religious structures on public streets, parks, and public places, and to formulate policies for dealing with existing encroachments. Acting on these directions, governments across the country have issued policies prohibiting new religious structures on public land without lawful authority.
The principle behind these directions is simple: public land belongs to everyone and must be used for public purposes. Government offices are meant for administration, not religious activities.
If a temple is permitted within a government office today, on what legal basis can another department refuse permission for a church, mosque, gurdwara, or monastery tomorrow? The State cannot adopt different standards for different religions. Equality before the law, guaranteed under Article 14, demands neutrality.
This is not an argument against religion. Citizens are free to build and maintain places of worship on private land or on land lawfully allotted for that purpose. What should not happen is the conversion of government premises into religious spaces, irrespective of which religion is involved.
The controversy should therefore be resolved not through agitation or political rhetoric but by applying the Constitution and the law uniformly. If the structure has been constructed without lawful approval and in violation of government policy, the District Administration should act in accordance with the law. Conversely, if all statutory approvals exist, those should be made public to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence.
In a diverse country like India, the neutrality of State institutions is one of the strongest safeguards of religious freedom. Government offices must remain places where every citizen feels equally represented—not places where the State appears to identify with any particular faith.
Yours etc.,
Mantre H Dkhar,
Via email
