Editor,
This is with reference to the letter titled “Where is the Ward’s Lake Bridge” by John K Rani published in your esteemed daily on April 3, 2026, it is always reassuring to see our citizens’ concern for the fate of the Ward’s Lake bridge which is an iconic landmark of our city. The “some local architectural firm” mentioned happens to be us “atelier A+.” We were formally commissioned in 2024 by the Department of Forests (the custodians of Ward’s Lake at the time) to redesign the bridge after it was declared structurally unsafe and closed to the public after it was last renovated post its partial destruction by the Great Assam Earthquake of 1897.
Because the bridge is an iconic public structure—not a playground for design experiments—we conducted a public poll on social media platforms. Over 95% of respondents expressed a clear desire to retain the original form. Taking that seriously, we resisted the now-fashionable urge to reinvent everything in sight. Instead, we carefully studied its history and proposed a design that restored the original British-era bridge, but with a thoughtful addition: to integrated planters of the ficus plant so that it shall someday overtake the steel railings to gradually evolve into a living breathing entity thereby paying homage to our own ancient indigenous knowledge in bridge building technology or craft in this case.
The proposal which was vetted by NIT Shillong, cost a modest Rs 1.5 crores, and was duly submitted and approved by the Forest Department which simultaneously asked for sanction from the Government. That sanction approval, however, appears to have taken the same route as many sensible public proposals—filed somewhere between “under consideration” and “never to be seen again.” Shortly thereafter, Ward’s Lake was transferred to the Department of Tourism. And with that, the bridge project seems to have vanished—not structurally this time, but administratively.
What has not vanished, however, is the steady conversion of a public green space into an expensive ticketed event ground. One cannot help but notice that the current approach seems less concerned with the citizens of Shillong and far more attentive to “guests”—read: tourists—who are, by definition, temporary. The residents, meanwhile, appear to have been gently repositioned as occasional visitors to their own city.
This brings us to the much-discussed issue of festivals. Contrary to popular belief, the city did not suddenly discover the need for public event spaces. As part of the Smart City initiative, the Government of Meghalaya itself had organised an international design competition way back in 2018 for a “world-class iconic landmark” at Barik Point—a centrally located 3.5-acre site intended to create a space “wherein the people of Meghalaya and tourists can relate with and identify themselves.”
Our award-winning proposal for the Barik Project responded precisely to this brief. It included a large, purpose-designed public plaza capable of accommodating festivals, gatherings, and cultural events—without the need for temporary shamianas, visual urban clutter, or the conversion of ecological spaces into makeshift venues. In other words, the very problem we are currently improvising solutions for had already been addressed—thoughtfully, and in advance.
That project, too, has since been put on hold and so we now find ourselves in the rather iconic, sorry, ironic situation where planned, designed, and publicly envisioned solutions remain shelved—while ad-hoc interventions take centre stage.
To summarise: The bridge exists—as a design, vetted and ready. The public supported it. The proposal was submitted. And then, somewhere along the way, priorities changed. The concern expressed in the earlier letter is valid—the bridge is missing. The difference is, we know it was not due to lack of intent, effort, or public will. It simply did not fit into the script of the current Government. Perhaps someday, that script will include the citizens of Shillong as more than just background characters.
Yours etc.,
Aiban S Mawkhroh,
Via email
Conrad Sangma Secures Historic Safeguard for Tribal Identity in Meghalaya
Editor,
The recent development concerning the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) marks a truly historic moment in the political and cultural journey of Meghalaya’s tribal communities. The decision to make a Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate mandatory for candidates contesting GHADC elections is not merely a procedural amendment, it is a powerful reaffirmation of the very purpose for which Autonomous District Councils were created.
Under the leadership of Conrad K. Sangma, the move has been welcomed as a long-overdue correction that strengthens the constitutional vision of safeguarding indigenous rights. For decades, there have been concerns that the spirit of tribal self-governance was being diluted. This amendment addresses those concerns directly by ensuring that the council remains firmly in the hands of the indigenous tribal population it is meant to represent.
The significance of this decision lies in its clarity of intent. Autonomous District Councils, particularly in states like Meghalaya, were established to protect tribal identity, customs, and governance structures. By mandating ST certification for electoral candidates, the GHADC has reinforced this foundational principle, ensuring that governance remains rooted in the traditions, values, and aspirations of the tribal communities.
Chief Minister Conrad Sangma’s support for this measure reflects a leadership approach that balances sensitivity with decisiveness. At a time when tensions and uncertainties had emerged around the electoral process, his endorsement of the amendment signals a commitment to long-term stability and inclusivity. Rather than allowing the issue to remain a source of conflict, the government has backed a solution that aligns with both constitutional safeguards and public sentiment.
Importantly, this decision also carries deep symbolic value. For many, it represents the culmination of a demand that has existed for generations, an assertion that tribal identity is not negotiable but central to the governance framework in the region. It restores confidence among the people that their voices, culture, and political rights are being protected in a meaningful and lasting way.
In essence, this is more than an electoral reform. It is a defining step towards preserving the unique identity of Meghalaya’s tribal communities while strengthening democratic institutions. With this move, the GHADC, supported by the state leadership, has set a precedent that underscores the importance of authenticity in representation.
As Meghalaya continues to progress, such decisions reinforce the idea that development and cultural preservation can go hand in hand. The leadership of Conrad K. Sangma, in backing this historic amendment, has ensured that the future of tribal governance remains firmly anchored in its rightful foundations.
Yours etc;
Jack Syiemlieh,
Via email
