A Vehicle Can Protect Without Intimidating
Editor,
I wish to respectfully draw the attention of the Government of Meghalaya and the Home Department to the psychological and environmental implications of our State’s police fleet.
My concern pertains specifically to the boxy, black Mahindra Thar presently in use by our police force. While it is undoubtedly robust and capable, its design conveys a heavy, assertive character. To many citizens, it appears less an instrument of public safety and more reminiscent of vehicles associated with intimidation in popular media.
On Shillong’s congested streets and on our State’s narrow, winding roads, this vehicle projects an antagonising presence. Rather than instilling reassurance, it often creates tensions, making people feel apprehensive instead of protected. An aggressive vehicle elevates stress and blood pressure.
Metaphorically and environmentally, when collective human temperatures rise, so does the Earth’s temperature. A police vehicle ought to safeguard without alarming. Strength need not appear hostile.
I therefore earnestly request the Government of Meghalaya to consider transitioning to calmer, more approachable, and environmentally sustainable alternatives for our police department – such as electric vehicles. This would serve a two- fold purpose: easing public anxiety on our roads and reducing the carbon footprint of law enforcement.
Let us choose mobility that brings tranquility to our streets and healing to our planet.
Yours etc.,
Morning Star Sumer,
Via email
Who Stole Our Future?
Editor,
Apropos the article “The Price of Neglect” by Darisuk Syiemlieh published in The Shillong Times on July 14, 2026, the issues raised deserve attention because they reflect a crisis that extends beyond unemployment or delayed recruitment. The deeper concern is the growing sense among many young people that the promises made to them through education, hard work and honesty are no longer matched by opportunity.
Across Meghalaya, countless families have invested years of sacrifice believing that education would secure a better future. Yet many educated young men and women continue to wait—for employment, for fair opportunity and, above all, for the assurance that merit still matters. The greatest danger is not simply the absence of jobs, but the gradual loss of faith in institutions meant to reward ability and integrity. When effort no longer appears to guarantee a fair chance, disappointment slowly gives way to disillusionment.
Meghalaya has never lacked talent. Its young people have consistently demonstrated the ability to excel both within and beyond the state. The tragedy is not a shortage of capable minds but the inability to create conditions where those minds can flourish at home. Every young person compelled to leave in search of opportunity represents not only a personal loss but a reminder that the state’s greatest resource is quietly slipping away.
Equally important is the question of public trust. Citizens can endure hardship when they believe the system is fair. But whenever recruitment processes, appointments or public institutions become subjects of persistent controversy, confidence begins to erode. Transparency and accountability are not administrative formalities; they are the foundations upon which democratic legitimacy rests.
This is why leadership matters. Meghalaya has known leaders whose legacy was defined not by power or privilege but by character. B. B. Lyngdoh remains respected not merely because of the offices he held, but because of the values he embodied—simplicity, intellectual curiosity and an unwavering sense of public duty. His life reflected an understanding that public office is a responsibility entrusted by the people, not an opportunity for personal advancement. Such examples remind us that constitutional authority may come through office, but moral authority can only be earned through public confidence.
Ultimately, history will not remember governments for the promises they announced or the speeches they delivered. It will remember whether they restored hope to a generation that waited patiently for its chance, strengthened institutions so that merit prevailed over influence, and gave young people reason to believe that their future could be built in their own homeland.
For the true wealth of Meghalaya does not lie beneath its hills or within its natural resources. It lies in the minds, integrity and aspirations of its youth. If that faith is allowed to fade, no measure of economic progress will compensate for what has been lost. When future generations look back at this moment, will they say this was the time Meghalaya renewed its faith in its youth—or the moment it quietly allowed its future to walk away?
Yours etc.,
Delphine L. Kurkalang, (A young unemployed graduate)
Nongpoh
Time for Inclusivity, not Over-protectionism
Editor,
Every community is unique and their culture and social practices are invaluable regardless of population size. A numerically strong and a smaller community both deserve equal respect for their culture and traditions. However, numerical strength alone cannot justify extraordinary constitutional or legal safeguards for any community, as is often argued in Meghalaya. Here, Goa offers a unique counter argument.
Goa with a population of only 15 Lakhs (2011 Census), significantly less than Meghalaya, welcomed “influx” of 1.02 crore “outsiders” (domestic tourists) in 2025. Interestingly, Goa does not have any special protection like the Sixth Schedule, ILP, land Transfer Act or any restrictions on trade/business by “outsiders.” Despite the massive “influx” of outsiders and the absence of any special constitutional or legal protections, the people of Goa neither live in perpetual fear of losing their culture or land, nor have they been outnumbered or deprived of their distinct identity. In contrast, in Meghalaya, despite extensive legal safeguards, there are persistent demands for more protection. This indicates that the push for additional safeguards is not rooted in numerical strength or cultural survival, but rather reflects conscious social attitudes of exclusion aimed at keeping permanent non‑tribal residents outside the social, administrative, political, and economic spheres and extending the same even to Indian tourists. Goa unequivocally demonstrates that small population size does not automatically necessitate restrictive constitutional or legal protections.
Therefore, considering the existing safeguards in Meghalaya and their proven effectiveness over time, there is no justification or necessity for the Government of India or the Government of Meghalaya to entertain further demands for additional protection for tribal communities. On the contrary, drawing from the example of Goa, the Government of Meghalaya should seriously consider easing certain restrictions for the permanent non‑tribal population in the spheres of employment and trade, and shelve any measures aimed at monitoring domestic tourists. Such an approach would foster inclusivity and contribute to the all‑round development of the state.
Yours etc.,
NK Kehar,
Shillong -3
