Editor,
I start this letter by appreciating the Government for the relocation of the vendors from the Civil Hospital to the premises of the PWD at Barik. It is indeed a welcoming move especially for pedestrians. For a very long time vending on this stretch had deprived pedestrians of the footpath causing inconvenience as well as health and sanitation concerns. The relocation of the hawkers to a designated hawking zone will now allow pedestrians to walk on this footpath freely without having to rub shoulders with moving vehicles plying on the road. One had always been advocating the need for hawkers to be provided designated spaces for them to trade freely without causing any kind of inconvenience to others as well as allowing them to earn their livelihood without being disturbed.
What is to be considered is that the relocation is accompanied by provisions of basic amenities such as shelter, sanitation facilities, waste management and securities from eviction drives and harassment. Only then will the relocation be seen as a constructive step creating a balanced and organised urban set up that benefits the vendors and the general public alike.
Yours etc.,
Jenniefer Dkhar,
Via email
Why I Should Pick the Next Set of Awardees
Editor,
I nearly choked on my morning tea when I saw Professor Kynpham Sing Nongkynrih’s name on the Meghalaya Day Awards list. That the man deserves it is indisputable. It was the sheer, physiological shock that the Powers That Be actually noticed him. I was his PhD student back in the Paleolithic era, a time I spent perfecting the “Thoughtful Nod” while he said profound things that sailed majestically over my head.
Honestly, the man is a menace to forestry. He churns out literature with such an alarming rate that one must assume he has a personal vendetta against the trees. He is currently studied in colleges and universities across India, which is frankly suspicious. In academia, you usually need to have been decomposing for at least a century before a Board of Studies considers you “canonical”. Being a living text is terribly inconvenient….it deprives scholars of the joy of making up wild theories about what you “really meant” without you annoyingly correcting them on Instagram or Twitter.
But the timing, don’t you find it comical? Giving him this award now is like congratulating the Beatles on their “promising new sound” in 2026. It feels like the bureaucracy woke up from a thirty-year nap, wiped the drool off its chin, and said, “Hey, this Kynpham chap might be onto something”.
I am 99% certain this was a computer glitch. Someone in the department must have leaned on a keyboard, accidentally highlighted a deserving name in the database and hit print before they could swap it out for a politician’s nephew. Other states gave him awards, while our government was likely still forming a sub-committee to define the word “literature”.
Don’t get me started on the others! Look at Professor Esther Syiem, another gem we ignored until a neighbouring state honoured her. It is embarrassing, really. We are sitting on a goldmine of intellect, yet we wait for our neighbours to point out the nuggets.
So, here is my proposal to the state: Hire a consultant. That’s the Shillong way, isn’t it? Pay someone an obscene amount of public money to do a Google search for “Who has done commendable work?” Or, you could hire me. I’m expensive, I’m cynical, I have internet access, and I actually read the books. That makes me overqualified for the job, but I’m willing to lower my standards for the right price…….
Yours etc.,
Ellerine Diengdoh,
Via email
When interviews are framed to defame
Editor,
I write this letter to place on record an important truth that is often missing from public discussion about the much-trolled television interview of boxing legend Mary Kom. Today, people remember only what she said. Very few remember what she was asked — or the context in which she was made to answer.
The episode occurred during a televised interview conducted by senior journalist Rajat Sharma. Until that point, the conversation had followed a normal course, touching upon Mary Kom’s life and achievements. Then, quite suddenly, the focus shifted away from sport.
Mary Kom was asked a direct and deeply personal question about her husband’s career — what he did, and whether his professional life had suffered because of her success in boxing. In effect, she was asked to publicly explain her husband’s earnings and professional standing.This context is crucial.
Caught unprepared by such a question, Mary Kom responded honestly and without calculation. She spoke about the period when her husband chose to support her career, take care of their children, and manage household responsibilities. While doing so, she said that during that phase he did not earn money. Her intention was clearly to acknowledge sacrifice and support, not to demean or ridicule her husband.
However, what followed is what we see today. Her reply was clipped into a short video, stripped of the question that led to it, and circulated widely on social media. The context disappeared. What remained was a single line, repeatedly replayed and mocked. Mary Kom began to be trolled — not for dishonesty or arrogance, but for answering a question she did not choose to face. This is where the injustice lies.
People laugh at the answer without asking why such an answer was required at all. They forget that no male athlete is ever asked whether his wife’s career suffered because of his success. No man is expected to explain his spouse’s income on national television. Mary Kom was placed in that position because she is a woman — and because the question itself carried a gendered assumption.
A senior journalist understands the power of framing. He also understands how a single sentence can be clipped, shared, and misused in today’s media environment. A question of this nature was bound to produce exactly the kind of reaction that followed. The trolling was not accidental; it was foreseeable.
Mary Kom trusted the interviewer and answered in good faith. She did not insult her husband. She did not boast about her success. She merely responded to what she was asked. To hold her responsible for the cruelty that followed is to punish honesty and reward poor judgement.
Mary Kom’s life story is one of courage, discipline, and extraordinary achievement against social and economic odds. It deserves to be remembered for medals, not mockery; for resilience, not ridicule.
If we are to be fair, we must remember the episode in full — the question, the context, and then the answer. Remembering only the reply while forgetting the provocation is not justice; it is convenience.
I hope this letter helps readers see the episode in its entirety and reminds us that responsibility in journalism begins not with the answer, but with the question.
Yours etc.,
Jairaj
Via email
Read more on The Shillong Times
