Editor,
It was quite amusing to read that the Defence forces have rejected the government of Meghalayas proposal to create a flyover from Rilbong to Barik point. They were quoted as citing security concerns.
What a laugh. This is in an age of satellite imagery and drones where everything has changed to such an extent that security has become digitalised. The bosses in question probably never feel the need because they are permitted to weave through the traffic with their red lights and sirens blaring.
The traffic police can and should rightfully stop these people from overtaking and to crawl like the common people are doing every day. Probably this is the only solution to make them see reason.
Yours etc.,
Dr. Tridib Kakoty,
Via email
Mawbah Road Devastated & Slow Pace of Repair
Editor,
It has now been over two weeks since this vital road of the thickly populated Mawbah Barapathar area was dug up for laying the main PHE pipeline. Digging the road for laying a water pipeline is understandable and necessary. However, the manner in which the road is being repaired has caused severe inconvenience and frustration among the residents of this densely populated locality.
While the digging work was completed almost overnight, possibly with the use of JCB machines, the repair work is being carried out manually by only four to five labourers. The pace of restoration is extremely slow, and the work appears to be proceeding without urgency. As a result, the dug-up road remains in a deplorable condition, causing immense hardship to pedestrians, commuters, and motorists who are compelled to use this road daily.
The contractor responsible for the digging and repair should also be mindful that this road connects six cremation and burial grounds of different faiths. People carrying dead bodies for cremation or burial are facing great hardship and emotional distress while passing through this broken and uneven stretch of road.
In addition, during medical emergencies, ambulances and other vehicles face serious difficulty in navigating this damaged road, potentially endangering lives. Although the rainy season has not yet begun, any rainfall will make the loose soil and uneven surface dangerously slippery, significantly increasing the risk of accidents for both pedestrians and vehicles if timely repairs are not carried out.
With schools having reopened, many parents are ferrying their children on scooters and driving through this devastated road has become highly unsafe. Even daily users of this road have been facing continuous problems in commuting for the past two weeks.
In view of the above facts, the contractor and the concerned authorities responsible for laying the pipeline and restoring the road are earnestly requested to recognize the gravity of the situation and take immediate steps to repair the road on a war footing.
Yours etc.,
Krishna Chettri,
Shillong -2
Epstein Files & National Security
Editor,
Apropos of the editorial “Tower of silence” (ST February 11, 2026). General M.M. Naravane’s unpublished memoir Four Stars of Destiny has become a political flashpoint, but based on what is known so far, he did not explicitly accuse the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister of abdication of their responsibility. The book reportedly includes reflections on the Galwan clash (2020) and the broader India–China standoff. One passage described the civilian leadership as having “handed a hot potato” to the military — a phrase some interpret as suggesting the government shifted responsibility at a critical moment. Army veterans who have read the leaked text argue Naravane’s tone was philosophical rather than accusatory, and that nothing in the memoir violates secrecy or directly blames the PM or Defence Minister.
Opposition leaders, especially Rahul Gandhi, have seized on excerpts to argue that the government avoided accountability and that Naravane’s words imply abdication. The government and military veterans counter that this is politically motivated noise, insisting the memoir does not contain such direct accusations. Naravane’s memoir uses language that can be read as critical of how responsibility was managed during the Galwan crisis, but it stops short of a direct charge of abdication against the PM or Defence Minister. The controversy is largely driven by political framing and interpretation, rather than clear, explicit accusations in the text itself.
In the January 2026 release of 50% of 3 million Epstein’s files by the US Department of Justice, in an email dated July 2017 mentions Modi’s official visit to Israel. Epstein the MOSSAD operative and a Zionist who have three functions – blackmailing operation, funding and carrier progress, through this mechanism he controls society and is involved in trafficking, cannibalism and satanic ritual wrote that Modi “took advice and danced and sang in Israel for the benefit of the US President” after meeting Donald Trump weeks earlier. India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) quickly clarified that Modi’s name appears only because of his official Israel trip in July 2017.They dismissed other references as “trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal,” stressing there was no impropriety.
Opposition parties seized on the mention, framing it as a national embarrassment and demanding answers. The government insists the claims are baseless, while critics argue the episode damages Modi’s carefully cultivated image. Modi’s name surfaces in the Epstein files only in relation to his 2017 Israel visit. The Indian government rejects any suggestion of a deeper link, calling the references baseless. The controversy is more about political narratives and perception than substantive evidence. Modi’s mention is incidental, not substantive—linked to a diplomatic trip. The controversy lies more in reputational framing than in evidence of wrongdoing that highlights how sensitive global scandals can ripple into domestic politics, even when the connection is tenuous.
The editorial is right that “Too much need not be read into such ‘exposes’ as long as national interest has not been compromised.” “Too much need not be read” suggests that incidental mentions (like Modi’s name in Epstein’s emails) should not automatically be treated as evidence of wrongdoing. “As long as national interest has not been compromised” establishes the threshold: the real concern is whether India’s security, diplomacy, or sovereignty were harmed. If not, then the controversy is more about perception than substance.
Opposition parties may amplify the mention for reputational damage, but the government emphasizes that no national interest was affected. Citizens are left balancing sensational disclosures against official clarifications. Modi’s name appears only in relation to his 2017 Israel trip, which was a legitimate state visit. That makes the “national interest” test crucial- there is no evidence of compromise. The editorial statement essentially argues for restraint in interpretation unless the files reveal actions that tangibly harmed India’s national interest, the controversy should not be overblown. It is a call to separate political noise from substantive risk.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
