Editor,
I wish to refer to the special article titled “The Inspiring Journey of Sourya, a Boy originally from Tura” published on February 28, 2026 in your esteemed newspaper. At the outset, I sincerely appreciate the author for thoughtfully capturing my son’s journey, struggles and aspirations. As a mother, it was deeply touching to see his dedication and perseverance expressed with such sensitivity and respect. Such encouragement means a great deal to a young boy who continues to work hard towards his dreams.
However, I would like to gently clarify that my son’s correct name is “Mourya”, not “Sourya” as printed in the article. It appears to have been a simple typographical oversight. A name carries a child’s identity and the story of his journey, and therefore this small correction is important to us.
I kindly request the respected readers to read “Mourya” instead of “Sourya.” Our gratitude towards the author and your esteemed newspaper remains unchanged.
Yours etc.,
Minakashi Chhetry Panikar (mother of Mourya),
Via email
True Unity Cannot Come from Erasing Identity
Editor,
The recent proceedings in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly concerning the review of the State’s Job Reservation Policy raise an issue that deserves careful public attention.
During the debate on the Expert Committee’s report, Ardent M. Basaiawmoit repeatedly referred to the 40 percent reservation category as belonging to the “Khasi community,” omitting the officially recognised composite classification “Khasi–Jaintia.” A Point of Order was raised by Deputy Chief Minister Sniawbhalang Dhar, and the Hon’ble Speaker rightly ruled that the correct terminology is “Khasi–Jaintia,” not “Khasi” alone.
In defending his usage, the member stated that he preferred to use “Khasi” in order to “unify” the sub-tribes. This explanation, however, reveals a fundamental confusion between the words unify and unite.
To unify means to combine different parts or components into a single whole often implying structural merging. To unite, on the other hand, generally means bringing people together for a common purpose while allowing them to retain their distinct identities. The distinction is not merely a matter of wording; it reflects an important difference in meaning and intent.
If the intention is to unite, then the correct approach is to acknowledge and respect the existence of Khasi and Jaintia as distinct communities standing together in cooperation. However, using only “Khasi” while claiming inclusivity suggests an attempt to unify by linguistic absorption combining components into one term and thereby blurring established distinctions.
Meghalaya was formed upon the recognition of three separate tribal identities: Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo. The administrative category “Khasi–Jaintia” exists for reservation purposes; it does not convert one group into a subset of the other. The Jaintias possess their own recorded political history, traditional institutions, territorial legacy, and linguistic development. To imply that they are merely a sub-tribe of the Khasis is historically inaccurate.
Unity must be built on clarity, not conflation. Bringing communities together does not require renaming or subsuming them. On the contrary, genuine unity grows stronger when distinct identities are acknowledged and respected.
Legislative language carries constitutional weight. Words used in the Assembly are entered into official record. The Speaker’s ruling reaffirming “Khasi–Jaintia” was therefore necessary to preserve both procedural correctness and tribal equity.
This is not a matter of emotion, but of being correct. If we want solidarity among the people of Meghalaya, we must come together while respecting our differences and not merge identities by ignoring them.
It is also important to question what kind of “unity” is being promoted. If unity is spoken of only between Khasi and Jaintia, then it is incomplete and selective. Meghalaya is not made up of two tribes alone. The Garo community is an equal and foundational partner in the making of this State. Any idea of unity that leaves out one of the three recognised tribes is not unity, it is division in another form.
A divisive mindset does not always shout; sometimes it quietly narrows the definition of who belongs. True unity in Meghalaya must be the unity of Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo together: equal in identity, equal in dignity, and equal in constitutional recognition. Anything less weakens the very foundation on which the State was built.
I would also urge the VPP leadership to reconsider and correct their narrative of “unity.” True unity in Meghalaya cannot be selective or limited to just Khasi and Jaintia. By excluding the Garos, such a narrative risks creating division rather than harmony. The VPP, as a political voice in the State, has a responsibility to promote solidarity that respects all three indigenous communities- Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo equally. A narrative that embraces only part of Meghalaya’s diversity undermines the very principles of inclusion, equality, and constitutional recognition that the State was founded upon.
Yours etc.,
Marbiang L Rymbai,
Via email
Concern over the Quality of MERB’s Latest Examination
Editor,
The recent State examination conducted by the Meghalaya Education Recruitment Board has raised several concerns regarding its procedural standards. The exam was MCQ-based, yet candidates had to write their answers on regular paper instead of marking them on an OMR sheet, significantly reducing the reliability and security of the assessment process.
Additionally, there were no clear instructions regarding the overwriting of answers, leaving answer scripts susceptible to tampering after submission.
Another major issue was the distribution of unsealed question papers, which added to candidates’ concerns, particularly in light of repeated worries about exam confidentiality. Compounding this was the use of the application code as the candidate identifier. Because this information is publicly available online, examiners can easily know the identity of the candidates while manually correcting the papers. This lack of anonymity undermines the impartiality that competitive examinations should maintain.
Moreover, the exam schedule and centre allocation were published online only on the evening before the exam, creating unnecessary confusion and anxiety for candidates. Considering that applicants pay fees comparable to those charged by the State MPSC, it is reasonable to expect a system that meets basic standards of security, confidentiality, and fairness.
Yours etc.
Name withheld on request,
Via email
Healthcare Crisis at the Border
Editor,
I am writing to draw the immediate attention of the state health authorities and the public to the dire healthcare crisis currently unfolding in the border region of Dawki. For more than two weeks now, the Dawki Primary Health Centre (PHC)—the only medical lifeline for many border villages has been left without a single Medical Officer.
Since the transfer of the previous doctor, no replacement has been dispatched. This administrative lapse has effectively shuttered the primary source of emergency care for a community that consists largely of hard-working, low-income agrarian families.
The human cost of this vacancy is heart-wrenching. When a medical emergency strikes at midnight in a remote border village, every minute is the difference between life and death. Expectant mothers, the elderly and victims of accidents are now forced to undertake gruelling, expensive journeys to Amlarem, Jowai or Shillong to see a doctor. For a daily wage earner, the cost of hiring a private vehicle for such a trip is often equivalent to a week’s earnings.
Dawki is not just a cluster of villages, it is a vital international transit point. To leave such a strategic and populated area without a medical professional is a gamble with human lives that we simply cannot afford.
Health is a fundamental right, yet the people of the Dawki border feel abandoned by the very system meant to protect them. I earnestly urge the Health Department to prioritize the immediate deputation of a Medical Officer to the Dawki PHC. It is imperative that we proactively address the critical need for medical personnel in our public healthcare facilities. We cannot wait for a tragedy to occur before we recognize that a PHC without a doctor is a building without hope.
Yours etc.,
Chanmiki Lamin,
Via email
