Editor,
In moments of unrest, public anger often looks for a single individual to hold responsible. The recent violence in the Garo Hills, linked to the now-postponed elections to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC), has followed a similar pattern, with much of the criticism directed at Chief Minister Conrad Sangma. However, a closer and more balanced examination shows that the situation is far more complex and cannot be reduced to the actions of one leader.
At a time when tensions were high and emotions were running deep, the Chief Minister’s response stood out for its restraint. In circumstances where many would have resorted to aggressive or heavy-handed measures, Conrad Sangma chose a different path. He went to the streets, met people directly, and assessed the damage caused by the violence. This approach reflected calmness and humility rather than authority alone, and it sent an important message of reassurance during a period of uncertainty.
While criticism is a natural part of any democracy, it must be grounded in context. It is worth asking whether it is reasonable to place the blame for such a crisis entirely on the present government when the roots of the issue go back several decades. The question of non-tribal participation in GHADC elections is not a recent development. It has existed since the framing of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, under which non-tribals have been allowed to contest elections since the very inception of the Council. This framework has continued unchanged across successive governments and political phases.
There is, of course, a genuine and understandable concern among many that Autonomous District Councils, created under the Sixth Schedule, are meant to safeguard tribal self-governance and identity. From that perspective, the demand to restrict electoral participation to tribal communities has its own merit. However, such a change must follow the proper constitutional route. It requires an amendment of the existing rules through the District Council itself, followed by the approval of the Governor. It cannot be addressed through immediate reactions or by attributing responsibility to the state government alone.
This is where it becomes important to recognise the distinction between institutional responsibility and political accountability. The rules governing GHADC elections are not framed by the present state government, and any modification must originate from the Council. To hold one individual responsible for a framework that has been in place since 1951 is to overlook the institutional processes involved.
The issue of illegal immigration further complicates the situation. It has been a long-standing concern in Meghalaya, shaping public sentiment and contributing to anxieties over identity, land, and representation. However, this too is not a recent phenomenon. It has developed over decades, across multiple administrations, including those led by the Indian National Congress. To attribute such a deep-rooted issue solely to the current government is to ignore its historical continuity.
It is therefore important to approach the situation with perspective. The unrest in Garo Hills is not the result of a single decision or a single administration. It is the outcome of long-standing structural issues, legal frameworks, and evolving social dynamics. While accountability remains essential, it must be fair and informed.
What is required now is not the search for a single point of blame, but a collective effort to address the underlying concerns. This includes pursuing legal clarity on electoral participation, strengthening institutional mechanisms, and addressing long-standing issues such as migration through sustained and coordinated policy measures.
In times like these, leadership is best judged not only by the challenges it faces but by the manner in which it responds. By choosing to engage directly with people and maintain a calm approach in the face of unrest, Conrad Sangma has demonstrated a willingness to lead with responsibility and composure. The way forward lies in building on that approach and working collectively towards lasting solutions, rather than reducing complex issues to simple conclusions.
Yours etc;
Jack Syiemlieh
Via email
Dealing With Traffic Congestion in Shillong
Editor,
The growing number of vehicles and inability to build or widen the roads, add to the chaos of traffic issues in any city and our beautiful city, Shillong is no exception. Suggestions like construction of flyovers in Shillong or any part of Meghalaya is absurd as the entire region falls under seismic zone VI.
Still if we collectively (Government, Locality Heads, Public) address the issue it can be solved to a great extent.
Firstly, the Government has to provide enough parking places in and around the city particularly in/near the market places. Road side authorized/unauthorized parking should be completely done away with.
Secondly, the Dorbar Shnong and Headmen of respective localities should identify places for community parking, if possible and also ensure no vehicle is parked by the roadside, particularly at night, so that in case of any emergency, ambulance and/or fire brigade can reach the spot without any hassle.
Thirdly, the public should strictly follow the rules and regulations regarding traffic and parking as laid by the Government, Local Dorbar Shnong and Police department from time to time and adhere to the required reforms.
Together we can surely bring the much needed change without spoiling the natural beauty of this city.
Yours etc.,
Dr Deepankar Dutt,
Via email
On Saving Kids from the Mobile Trap
Editor,
I fully agree with Salil Gewali’s thought provoking article under caption, “Protecting Children from the Menace of Digital Pollution,” (ST March 13, 2026). Over the past few years I have seen many parents struggle to limit their children’s mobile phone use, but their efforts often fail. Their children’s addiction to mobile games, as I have observed, has disrupted the peace at home. Parents feel at ease only when their children are at school. As soon as they return home, the children take their phones and go to their rooms. They often ignore their parents. When schools recommend using phones for study and homework, children take that as an excuse to use them for other purposes.
The most worrying effect on our younger generation is a loss of concentration, which harms their studies. Another serious problem is exposure to explicit digital content, which is taking a heavy toll on young people.
I think a government ban on mobile phones for children is necessary. To steer children away from harmful habits, parents also should encourage hobbies such as sports, gardening, and reading, which many children currently avoid. I completely agree with Mr Gewali that excessive mobile phone use among children has led to diminished mental focus, distorted thought patterns, increased anxiety and depression, memory loss, and emotional imbalance. Therefore, we see that the younger generation today is losing their mental balance quickly, and a series of problems follow.
Yours etc.,
Rupesh Nath
Via email
