Editor,
It is unfortunate to see political discourse being reduced to personal attacks. Jawaharlal Nehru was a central figure in India’s freedom struggle and played a foundational role in shaping modern India’s democratic institutions, scientific temper, and foreign policy. Like any historical leader, his decisions can and should be debated critically but criticism should focus on policies and governance, not on insinuations about personal character without credible evidence.
In this context, the act of Union Textile Minister Giriraj Singh displaying six AI generated photographs of India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, in an attempt to portray him as a “womaniser” is highly condemnable. Such actions diminish the dignity of public office and divert attention from substantive policy discussions. Political leaders are expected to elevate debate, not reduce it to personal insinuations about historical figures who played pivotal roles in shaping the nation.
Under the present regime, parliamentary debate increasingly appears to mirror the tone and rhetoric of election campaign platforms rather than serve as a forum for serious legislative deliberation. Instead of reasoned discussion, evidence-based argument, and bipartisan engagement, proceedings often reflect partisan sloganeering and historical blame narratives. This trend weakens the institutional sanctity of Parliament and risks normalising confrontational politics over constructive governance.
Similarly, in parliamentary debates, differences in ideology between leaders such as Narendra Modi and past prime ministers are part of democratic politics. However, constant blame-shifting to previous governments does little to address present challenges. Mature democracies thrive when discussions are centered on accountability, solutions, and constructive debate rather than character assassination.
India deserves a political culture that respects history while engaging honestly with the present.
Yours etc.,
Marbiang L Rymbai,
Via email
India Must Recalibrate its Bangladesh Policy
Editor,
The last sentence of the editorial “BNP signals change” (ST February 16,2026) is perceptive. India-Bangladesh relations are indeed entering a new phase and reconciliation with Bangladesh’s evolving realities is essential. In the current context, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has emerged dominant with Tarique Rahman signalling a reset in foreign policy. Their stance emphasizes a “Bangladesh First” approach, diverging from the earlier one-power focus under Sheikh Hasina. A key friction point is Sheikh Hasina’s continued stay in India, which BNP frames as an issue of sovereignty. At the same time, their manifesto stresses cooperative ties with neighbours for collective progress.
India preferred BNP’s rise, but this shift presents both opportunities and challenges. Economic cooperation is a priority, yet border and security concerns remain sensitive. Hence the need for a balancing act. India must manage BNP’s demand for Hasina’s extradition while maintaining goodwill. Strengthening trade, connectivity, and energy cooperation can anchor ties despite political turbulence. Past mistrust over cross-border militancy requires careful handling to avoid setbacks. BNP’s interest in reviving SAARC and recalibrating alliances means India must adapt to a more plural regional framework. Hence the last sentence of the editorial captures the essence: India cannot rely on old assumptions. It must reconcile with Bangladesh’s new political realities and pursue a balancing act—firm on core interests, flexible in diplomacy, and proactive in economic cooperation.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
Meghalaya’s Border Realities
Editor,
As Bangladesh enters a new political phase; it seems to me that both policymakers and ordinary readers should keep one simple fact in mind. Relations between India and Bangladesh are not decided only in meeting rooms in Delhi or Dhaka. Along the border, they are felt in daily life. For people in Meghalaya and other North-eastern states, even small developments across the boundary can quickly affect security, work, and local peace. From what we see on the ground, this is a situation that deserves far more attention at the national level than it usually gets.
From what one has been reading in The Shillong Times over the past two years, it is hard to believe that Meghalaya’s border troubles are only temporary. Reports during April to June 2024 spoke of river-boundary difficulties in the monsoon months. Stories in July and August noted BSF seizures and the persistence of smuggling routes. Later coverage between October and December mentioned fencing delays and local tensions in areas such as South West Khasi Hills and East Jaintia Hills. Ground reports through 2025 have continued to refer to crossings through unfenced stretches, smuggling activity, disputes near the zero line, and the daily strain faced by officials and villagers in remote border areas. All this seems to show that the matter is continuing and touches the lives of ordinary families, not only the security forces.
Given this background, it would probably make sense if India’s dealings with the present authorities in Dhaka paid closer attention to practical cooperation on the ground. Joint patrolling in sensitive stretches, quicker completion of fencing in the Meghalaya sector, wider use of properly regulated border haats so that small local trade can move into the legal channel, and better day-to-day coordination between neighbouring district officials could go a long way in easing local tension. Decisions taken in national capitals really need to translate into visible improvements for the people who actually live along the border.
Beyond the question of physical security, there is also the matter of public confidence. Whenever reports surface about insecurity faced by religious minorities across the border, it understandably creates concern in adjoining Indian districts where families and communities often share long social links. For this reason, it is important that the lawful rights and safety of all communities — Christians, Hindus, and others — continue to be protected in Bangladesh in line with constitutional safeguards and accepted norms. When conditions remain stable there, it naturally helps maintain calm on this side as well.
Much the same kind of practical worries can be seen in other border states too. Assam remains alert about migration pressure and organised cross-border crime. Tripura’s economic prospects depend heavily on secure transit routes and smoothly functioning check-posts. Mizoram at times has to deal with humanitarian pressures linked to informal crossings. West Bengal, for its part, must constantly handle riverine boundaries and regulated trade corridors. It may therefore be worth considering a more structured arrangement through which these states can regularly feed their ground experience into bilateral discussions, making cooperation more workable in practice.
For the ordinary public, the conclusion is fairly straightforward. Good relations between neighbours are judged not only by the statements issued after high-level meetings, but by whether people at the border feel safer, whether trade moves through lawful channels, and whether everyday uncertainty begins to lessen. Paying closer attention to Meghalaya’s frontier realities could thus be a practical and sensible starting point for strengthening India–Bangladesh relations in this new phase.
Yours etc,.
Jairaj,
Via email
