History Relies on Many Sources
Editor,
Dr. Omarlin Kyndiah’s article, “Who Defines the Jaiñtia? History or Colonial Records?”, is a timely response to Mr. Bhogtoram Mawroh’s article on Jaiñtia identity. Dr. Kyndiah rightly points out that the history of a people cannot be understood by depending mainly on British colonial records while ignoring archaeology, linguistics, oral traditions, political history, and the community’s own understanding of its identity.
I would also like to make one point very clear. We have no problem being called Jaiñtia or Synteng. We proudly call ourselves Jaiñtia, and we also accept Synteng as a historical and cultural name of our people. So, Mr. Mawroh’s repeated discussion about the name itself misses the real issue. The question is not whether we are Jaiñtia or Synteng. The real question is whether a community has the right to define its own identity instead of having it defined only through colonial records.
It is also surprising that Mawroh repeatedly questions the origin of the word “Jaiñtia” but does not apply the same standard to the word “Khasi,” whose origin is also debated by scholars. If he wants to examine the history of one name, fairness demands that he examine both in the same way. Otherwise, it appears that only the Jaiñtia identity is being singled out for doubt.
No historian today would say that British records alone decide who indigenous people are. Those records were written mainly for administration, not to give the final word on the history and identity of different communities. They are important sources, but they are only one part of the larger historical picture.
Nobody denies that the Khasi and Jaiñtia peoples share close historical, linguistic, and cultural ties. But sharing common roots does not mean they are the same people. Around the world, many communities share common ancestors but have developed their own distinct identities over time. The Jaiñtia are no different.
Dr. Kyndiah’s article reminds us that history should be studied from many sources, not just colonial documents. The Jaiñtia identity did not begin with the British, nor does it depend on British records for its existence. It is built on centuries of history, culture, traditions, institutions, and the continued self-identification of the Jaiñtia people. That identity deserves respect, not repeated questioning.
Yours etc.,
Mantre H Dkhar,
Via email
Meghalaya Deserves Better
Editor,
There comes a point when silence is no longer a virtue but a form of surrender. I write this letter not out of bitterness toward Meghalaya, but out of love for the land I call home. We are blessed with breathtaking landscapes, abundant natural resources, vibrant cultures, and talented young people. Yet, despite these gifts, we continue to struggle with problems that should never have become permanent features of our society. Rising crime, unemployment, poor infrastructure, inadequate healthcare, an education system that continues to disappoint, and the growing frustration of our youth have become so common that we risk accepting them as normal. But normal does not mean acceptable.
Every election arrives with familiar promises. We are assured that jobs will be created, roads will improve, corruption will be tackled, schools will flourish, and development will finally reach every corner of the state. But post election citizens find themselves asking the same questions because the same problems remain. Our youth complete their education only to discover that opportunities are scarce. Many leave Meghalaya in search of livelihoods elsewhere, while others remain behind hoping that tomorrow will be kinder than today. Farmers continue to work tirelessly, often earning less than they deserve, while small businesses struggle against inadequate infrastructure and limited support.
Whenever crime rises, governments promise stronger policing and tougher enforcement. Those measures are necessary, but they are only part of the solution. Crime does not appear in a vacuum. Most unemployed people never become criminals, and every individual remains responsible for the choices they make. Yet we cannot ignore that prolonged unemployment, poor education, substance abuse, weak institutions, and limited opportunities create conditions where crime finds fertile ground. Treating only the symptoms while neglecting the causes is no solution.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is not poverty itself but the gradual loss of hope. Society becomes truly vulnerable when its youth begin believing that hard work no longer guarantees opportunity. That is when frustration replaces ambition, and cynicism replaces faith in public institutions. Development does not mean inaugurating new projects or announcing ambitious plans. Development is measured by whether ordinary families feel safer, whether children receive quality education, whether graduates can find meaningful employment, and whether farmers and workers can build dignified lives without leaving their homeland.
What troubles many citizens even more is the visible contrast between everyday hardship and the comforts enjoyed by those who occupy positions of power. Across Shillong, countless families struggle to pay rent, postpone medical treatment, and worry about the next school fee. Farmers endure uncertain incomes despite feeding the state. Meanwhile, expensive luxury vehicles continue to appear on our roads long before the roads themselves are worthy of them. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with driving a BMW or a Mercedes-Benz. Honest success should never be condemned. The concern arises when such displays of privilege exist alongside widespread public hardship and declining trust in governance.
Stories of lavish residences owned by political leaders and government officials, imported luxury materials, and extravagant lifestyles often circulate whenever discussions about public accountability arise. Whether every story is true or exaggerated is not the central issue. The very fact that such questions persist reflects a deeper problem—a crisis of public confidence. Citizens naturally begin asking: if public servants are entrusted with safeguarding public resources, where does extraordinary wealth come from? If every asset has been acquired honestly, transparency should answer that question without hesitation. If not, the law should. Public office is not merely about avoiding corruption; it is about demonstrating integrity in a manner that earns the confidence of those whose taxes sustain the institutions of government.
Leadership is never been defined by the size of an official convoy, the comfort of a government residence, or the prestige of a political title. Leadership is measured by whether the weakest citizen feels protected, whether taxpayers believe their money is being spent wisely, and whether future generations inherit a state that offers greater opportunities than the one before it. Public office is a sacred trust, not a reward for political success.
This letter is not written to place every burden solely upon those in government. Democracy demands responsibility from citizens as well. We must reject vote-buying, refuse to normalize corruption, demand transparency, and judge leaders by their actions rather than their speeches. We cannot complain about broken governance while rewarding the very practices that weaken it. Accountability begins at the ballot box but does not end there.
To those entrusted with governing Meghalaya, I ask only this: when history reflects upon your years in office, what legacy do you hope it will remember? Will it remember promises repeated, or lives transformed? Will it remember official ceremonies, or schools strengthened, hospitals improved, roads completed, honest institutions built, and meaningful employment created? The measure of leadership is not how comfortably those in power lived, but how much better ordinary citizens lived because of their leadership.
Despite everything, I remain hopeful because Meghalaya possesses extraordinary potential. Our people are hardworking, resilient, and capable of remarkable achievements when given the opportunity. What we need is governance that matches the strength of our people—governance rooted in integrity, transparency, competence, and genuine public service rather than political convenience.
One question that deserves an honest answer is: if the people continue to struggle while those entrusted with serving them continue to prosper, who is truly benefiting from the wealth of our state?
Yours etc.,
Pdianghun Mawlong,
Nongstoiñ
