Editor,
I walked into North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) with a sense of pride. For a student like me hailing from far away hilly villages of Meghalaya, to study at a Central University is a privilege; it is supposed to be a place of higher thought, research, and the quiet pursuit of knowledge. But lately, when I walk through this campus, I do not hear the sound of debate or learning. I hear only the noise of coercion and when I am back home, people tell me, ‘You are one of the so-called educated NEHU students who behaved like barbarians’.
It breaks my heart to say this, but we have lost our way. As students, our primary duty; our dharma is to study. We are here to build our careers and be leaders of tomorrow. Instead, we have turned the campus into a permanent political theatre and in doing so, we are destroying the very institution we claim to be “saving.”
The Delusion of “Elected” Administrators.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding gripping our student body today. We seem to believe that the University Administration is a political arena where we hold the franchise. We act as if the Vice-Chancellor’s office is a constituency and the VC is a politician who must campaign in our favour.
We need to ask ourselves: Since when did the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor become an election based on student opinions, where they can appoint and remove him/her according to their will?
A VC is appointed based on statutory provisions, academic merit, and the decision of the Visitor (the President of India). It is not a popularity contest. By demanding resignations through strikes, lockouts, and intimidation whenever a decision displeases us, we are establishing a dangerous precedent of mob rule. If we treat the VC’s tenure as something we can vote out with a protest, no competent academic will ever want to lead this university. We are not “fixing” the system; we are breaking the chain of command required for any institution to function.
The Irony of Representation.
The hypocrisy is stark. We demand “democratic accountability” from the highest office of the university, treating the VC like a rogue MP. Yet, we must look in the mirror: Since when is our own Student Union based on appointment without contesting elections?
We often see student leaders acting not as representatives of the students’ academic welfare, but as shadow administrators, dictating terms with the arrogance of lifetime appointees. We demand the VC follow the rules, yet we break the rules of civil discourse daily. We cannot demand democracy while practicing autocracy.
The Death of Respect and “Akor”
However, the lowest point for me, the moment that made me truly fear for the soul of our university, was the recent treatment of our Pro-Vice Chancellor. Yes they have kicked out the Vice Chancellor Prof Shukla and got a responsible Pro-VC. I watched in disbelief as my fellow students yelled at the Pro-VC, Prof Sumarbin Umdor. They pointed fingers, raised their voices, and screamed at a senior academic as if they were far more educated than he was. They treated a Professor, a man who has dedicated his life to academia, with the kind of disdain one wouldn’t even show to a stranger on the street and forced him to resign as the pro-VC.
What makes this even more painful is that this Pro-VC is a Professor from our own Khasi community. In our culture, Akor (good manners) and respect for elders are the cornerstones of our identity. To see young Khasi students shouting down a Khasi elder, a man of distinction, is a source of deep shame. We are not just disrespecting a “chair” or a “position”; we are disrespecting our own values. How can we claim to fight for the community when we humiliate the community’s own intellectuals in public?
Paralyzing our future
We must ask ourselves a hard question: How can the university improve if we don’t let these officials do their work? When we force resignations and blockade offices, files stop moving. Grants get stuck. Exam schedules go haywire. The ranking of the university drops. The only victims of this chaos are us, the silent majority of students who just want to attend classes and earn a degree that holds value in the outside world.
It is not the student’s duty to run the administration. It is the student’s duty to learn. We have crossed the line from activism into obstructionism. It is time to lower our voices, put down the placards, and pick up our books that have accumulated dust in the library. Let us restore the dignity of NEHU, not by shouting at our teachers, but by listening to them and letting them take charge. We students are still young and have a lot to learn.
Yours etc.,
A concerned student of NEHU Shillong.
Name withheld on request
Via email
UDP’s inner strife?
Editor,
Recently, Paul Lyngdoh,the UDP party working President has conjured up the party’s lack of decision- making nuances in the sphere of fairness and collective co-operation and mutual understanding. Such unsavoury comments from one of the key leaders of UDP denote tell-tale signs of fissures in the UDP’s camp. Lyngdoh’s remonstrance will lead many, not to forget his bete-noire, to cast aspersions on him for having been deprived of ministerial status, hence his sense of unwarranted grouse!
Nonetheless, if the assertion of Lyngdoh is anything to go by and that his removal as cabinet minister was surreptitiously influenced by his party top leadership and the latter’s, reported silence has lent credence to this exposure. Notably, to add layer to the optics, Lyngdoh further emphasized that on the UDP foundation day, the party President Metbah Lyngdoh had affirmed that there was no plan whatsoever for a change of ministerial faces as far as the UDP is concerned! But this reneging on a commitment made at a Party meeting by the Party chief, unerringly demonstrates an overall unsound leadership and absence of core democracy. Paul’s experience may perhaps be arguably compared to what Julius Caesar had uttered to Brutus : “Et tu,Brute,” before dying as the former was being stabbed to death by Brutus himself, one of his most trusted friends!
Yours etc.,
Jerome K Diengdoh,
Shillong-2
Concerns over fairness in recent MPSC Examination
Editor,
Through this letter, I wish to draw the attention of the concerned authorities and the general public to the growing incompetence of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC) in conducting competitive exams in a fair and transparent manner.
The recent examination conducted for the post of Typist has raised serious concerns among aspirants. Traditionally, such examinations are expected to be objective in nature, preferably based on Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), to ensure transparency and uniformity in the evaluation process. However, with the examination being descriptive, this makes the awarding of marks highly subjective and open to bias, thereby defeating the very purpose of a competitive exam.
Further aggravating the method of selection was the practical test which was conducted at a very basic level and failed to adequately assess the actual typing skills and professional competence required for the post. When a subjective written examination is coupled with an overly easy practical test, it creates ample scope for favouritism and raises apprehensions that candidates with personal connections may be unfairly advantaged.
I urge the concerned authorities to take immediate cognizance of this matter, and introduce reforms to ensure transparency in the way exams are conducted. I hope this letter will serve as a wake-up call for the authorities to act responsibly and ensure justice to all aspirants.
Yours etc.,
Bansiewdor Mylliemngap,
Via email
