Editor,
Apropos to the letter ‘Responding Firmly to Misleading Cricket Narrative’ published on March 17, 2026, it is, to put it mildly, surprising that two former office bearers of the Meghalaya Cricket Association (MCA), with such evident emotion, have chosen to come out in complete defence and defiance when my initial article, ‘Rock-Bottom: Meghalaya Cricket’s Crisis and a Hope for Redemption’, did not in fact point to any particular individual with respect to the overall mismanagement of the Association. One is left genuinely puzzled as to why the authors appear to have taken such personal offence, and what it is in the article that so specifically wounded and targeted them. That question, perhaps, is worth mulling over.
I would, somewhat ironically, like to thank the authors because in their letter, they have done more to prove my point than I ever could have on my own. The article was, at its heart, a commentary on the culture of the MCA: the lack of openness to feedback, the hostility toward any form of constructive engagement, and a certain institutional disdain for accountability. The authors’ response, highly dismissive, combative, and lacking any genuine introspection, points exactly towards that culture.
It should be noted that the MCA is not a private limited company. The public has every right to engage with it, question it, and scrutinise it. One does not need to become an “over-night cricket analyst,” as the authors rather condescendingly and defamingly put it, to access publicly available data and draw reasonable conclusions from it.
And since the authors have been generous enough to credit me with analytical abilities, let me present a few more facts, because their letter appears to rest on the claim that the team has performed admirably over the years, and that this past season was merely an anomaly.
In the 2024-25 season, when Meghalaya did qualify for the Ranji Trophy Elite Group, an achievement the authors cite with great pride, the team played 7 matches and lost all 7. They finished with the lowest team quotient across all 32 teams in the Elite Groups.
More strikingly, in the match against Mumbai, Meghalaya suffered the third-largest defeat in the entire history of the Ranji Trophy, and recorded the second-worst start to an innings in first-class cricket history, across the world. This has even been cited by Wisden. I would gently ask the authors, had they paused to reflect on even a fraction of this before putting pen to paper, might they have arrived at a different conclusion? Might that reflection, over years and not just one season, have prompted some kind of systemic overhaul that the situation so evidently demands?
The authors even take considerable pride in recounting the journey to BCCI affiliation. The full affiliation of 2018 was secured when our current Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma, held the presidency of MCA. It requires no special analytical skill to recognise that no other individual within the Association at that time had the network, the political capital, or the negotiating bandwidth to deliver that outcome for Meghalaya cricket. The effort to claim collective credit, however well-intentioned it may be, does not sit comfortably alongside the facts and it does not serve the cause of humility particularly well either.
If the authors genuinely care for Meghalaya cricket, and I have no reason to doubt that they do, then a public platform in a widely circulated daily is a valuable thing. It ought not to be used to discredit a sports enthusiast who engaged with nothing more than publicly available information and an honest concern for the game’s future in this state.
It would serve the sport far better if that same platform, and whatever institutional knowledge and experience the authors carry, were directed instead toward offering the current administration concrete suggestions, measured counsel, and constructive engagement. That, ultimately, is what Meghalaya cricket needs right now. Not a defence of the past, but a hand in building what comes next. Things will not change “overnight” but “analysis” is definitely important for the required change.
Yours etc.,
Patrick Kurbah,
Via email
Protecting the Core Spirit of the 6Th Schedule
Editor,
This is with reference to the ongoing public discourse on the Sixth Schedule and the question of electoral participation in Autonomous District Councils.
While it is true that non-tribal participation in voting may be legally permissible within the broader framework of democratic rights, it is essential not to lose sight of the original intent behind the Sixth Schedule. The constitutional design was not merely administrative. It was protective, aimed at preserving tribal self-governance, identity, and control over local institutions.
Any interpretation or reform of the electoral system must therefore place this foundational objective at its centre. The structure of the Autonomous District Councils should continue to prioritise tribal control and decision-making, ensuring that the political future of these areas remains firmly in the hands of the indigenous communities for whom these safeguards were created.
Diluting this principle, even in the name of procedural inclusiveness, risks undermining the very purpose of constitutional protection.
Yours etc.,
Marbiang L Rymbai
Via email
Presence over Optics
Editor,
When unrest hit Garo Hills, Conrad K. Sangma chose to remain in Tura despite security advice to relocate after reports of possible attacks. He visited affected areas, met residents, and engaged with communities dealing with the aftermath of violence.
Alongside this, residents, youth groups, and local organizations were seen coming together to clear debris and clean up parts of Tura after the clashes. These were modest but visible efforts to restore a sense of normalcy in areas that had just experienced disruption.
On one hand, staying back during a tense situation reflects a willingness to be present rather than lead from a distance. In moments like these, visibility can matter and signal that, leadership is not entirely removed from the realities people are facing on the ground.
At the same time, presence alone does not resolve the deeper issues that lead to unrest. Questions around governance, local tensions, and accountability remain, and they require long-term responses beyond immediate visits or statements. It is also worth noting that such decisions carry both symbolic and practical weight. While they can build trust, they also come with risks and expectations that go beyond a single moment of crisis.
Ultimately, situations like this highlight a broader point: leadership is tested not just by being present during unrest, but by what follows thereafter, how effectively stability is restored, and whether underlying concerns are meaningfully addressed. He stayed, he acted and now the results will decide what it meant.
Your’s etc.,
Shivani Pde
Via email
