Editor,
For the past one month, youth across the country have been demanding the resignation of the Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, over the alleged NEET paper leak. This is not the first time such allegations have surfaced, but they have been raised on several occasions in the past. Abhijit Dipke, the founder of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), has been leading a movement of frustrated Gen Z youth demanding accountability from the government. As a symbolic form of protest, the youth even brought diapers! Not for babies, but for the government over the allegations that crucial medical examinations have been leaked repeatedly.
They have remained at the protest site for a long period and are not prepared to end their agitation unless the Education Minister resigns Why is the Prime Minister of India hesitant to ask the Education Minister to take responsibility? What is the hidden agenda? We have also seen that on July 20, 2026, the police allegedly beat the protesting youth mercilessly. Now, the movement is no longer confined to Delhi, it has spread to almost every state, including our own cities of Shillong and Tura. Not only that, reports and expressions of solidarity have also emerged from countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, and many others.
One thing I have observed from the Gen Z protests is that, despite their frustration, the youth have displayed remarkable creativity. The slogans they raise and the tactics they use have captured public attention. We can also see similar scenes unfolding in Bihar, where confrontations between the youth and the police have taken place. I wonder, where ll the media are? Why are they not giving adequate coverage to the protests at Jantar Mantar? Even when they do report on them, the focus often seems to be on portraying the youth as aggressive and rude rather than highlighting the issues they are raising.
Dear Government, if this movement is becoming widespread, why continue to provoke and escalate tensions? I believe that remaining silent in the face of perceived injustice is not an option. The youth are not demanding something impossible, they are asking for accountability and fairness in matters that directly affect their future. Please do not silence their voices. Instead, listen to them and invite them for a meaningful and peaceful dialogue. Ignoring them may only deepen public frustration. The government should engage with the concerns being raised before the situation deteriorates further and leads to more serious consequences.
Yours etc.,
Evanisha Pathaw
Via email
Don’t Rewrite Jaintia History
Editor,
I write in response to Bhogtoram Mawroh’s article, “The War People & The Making of Khasi Identity,” published in The Shillong Times on 23 July 2026.
The War community deserves every recognition for its immense contribution to the history and culture of the Jaintia people. Their traditions, language and heritage should be preserved and celebrated. However, Mawroh’s article does not stop at recognising the War. Instead, it questions the legitimacy of the Jaintia identity and presents speculation as established historical fact.
His criticism of the proposed Jaintia alphabet is particularly misleading. He suggests that it is an attempt to impose Pnar on the War people. This is simply incorrect. The Alphabet Committee constituted by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council did not ignore the War dialects. The Committee carefully studied the phonetic features of the War language and introduced additional letters to represent sounds not found in standard Pnar. The purpose was to accommodate linguistic diversity, not to erase it.
Mawroh should answer one simple question. When Rev. Thomas Jones developed the Khasi alphabet, did he include every sound found in the War, Bhoi, Lyngngam and other Khasi dialects? The answer is no. He adopted the Sohra dialect as the basis of the written Khasi language. Does anyone accuse Thomas Jones of trying to erase the identity of the War or the Bhoi? Certainly not. Every language requires a standard written form for education, literature and administration. Why should the Jaintia alphabet be judged by a different standard?
Developing a standard orthography does not destroy dialects. On the contrary, it provides the means to document, preserve and promote them. To portray the proposed Jaintia alphabet as an attack on the War identity is therefore not only inaccurate but also needlessly alarmist. Such a portrayal risks creating suspicion where none exists and misrepresents the painstaking work of the JHADC Alphabet Committee, which consciously took into account the linguistic features of the War dialects. Instead of encouraging informed public discussion, this line of argument may lead readers to believe that the initiative is driven by cultural domination rather than language preservation, despite the absence of evidence to support such a conclusion. Public debate on sensitive questions of language and identity should be guided by facts and careful analysis, not by claims that are likely to deepen misunderstandings among communities with a shared history.
More broadly, the article repeatedly reduces “Jaintia” to nothing more than a geographical label. That ignores centuries of history. Identities evolve. Today, Jaintia is a living historical, cultural and social identity shared by the people of the Jaintia Hills. Acknowledging the distinct identity of the War does not require denying or diminishing the Jaintia identity.
The War and the Pnar are not rivals competing for ownership of history. Their histories are deeply intertwined. We honour the War best by celebrating their unique heritage, not by rewriting history in ways that set one indigenous community against another.
History deserves careful research, balanced interpretation and respect for evidence. It should bring communities together, not encourage narratives that place them at odds with each other.
I would also urge the author to exercise greater responsibility when writing on matters of identity and history. The Jaintia Hills have always been home to the Pnar, War, Bhoi, Biate, Hadem and other communities who share a common historical legacy despite their distinct identities. Intellectual debate is welcome, but it should not be framed in a way that pits Jaintia Pnar against Jaintia War or creates the impression that one identity can only survive by weakening another. The strength of the Jaintia people lies in their diversity and shared heritage, not in narratives that fragment them. If we are truly committed to preserving our history, we must write in a manner that builds understanding and unity rather than deepening differences among our own people.
Finally, I would respectfully urge Mawroh to exercise greater caution before making sweeping claims about Jaintia history and identity. The history of the Jaintia people is complex and cannot be reconstructed through selective readings of folklore or personal interpretation alone. No individual has the authority to redefine the identity of an entire people without broad historical, linguistic and documentary evidence. If Mawroh wishes to advance new historical interpretations, he should first present the sources, methodology and evidence on which his conclusions are based, so that they can be examined and debated on their merits.
Perhaps it would be more useful if Mawroh were to write a comprehensive article on the sources of Khasi history-examining oral traditions, colonial records, indigenous chronicles, archaeology, linguistics and other primary sources. Such a discussion would enrich public understanding and encourage informed debate. What the people of Meghalaya need is careful historical inquiry grounded in evidence, not assertions that reopen questions of identity and risk creating unnecessary divisions between the Jaintia Pnar and the Jaintia War, who have shared a common history for centuries.
Yours etc.,
Mantre Hame Dkhar,
Via email
