Leader of the opposition Dr Mukul Sangma has raised serious concerns over the Meghalaya government’s formation of an all-party committee to discuss railway connectivity in the state, cautioning that the process lacks transparency, clarity and the necessary political groundwork to yield meaningful dialogue.
With the two other opposition parties – Congress and Voice of the People – opting out of the committee, all eyes are on the Trinamool Congress (TMC) to see whether it follows suit. When asked about this matter today, Dr Sangma underscored the importance of the “right approach before engagement,” leaving both possibilities open.
“The approach has to be correct. Has the government even tried to understand the minds of the political parties? Have I understood the minds of other political parties? No,” Dr Sangma said. “We need internal political consultations first before jumping to a committee platform that includes all stakeholders.”
He questioned the government’s decision to issue invitations to parties to send representatives without first setting a shared agenda or clarity on the issues to be discussed.
“If the intent of the committee is to end the deadlock, we first need to understand why civil society organisations have consistently opposed railway expansion,” he said. “They have always clarified they are not against development per se, but there are riders, conditions. So, how do we address these riders without first knowing what they are, and agreeing on a strategy?”
Pressure groups have largely been on one mind over the issue of railways, saying no to them without the Inner Line Permit (ILP) to keep a check on migration.
Dr Sangma noted that earlier surveys for railway projects, including one reaching up to Shillong, had progressed smoothly due to mutual trust between the government and the public. “Back then, there was no trust deficit. But today that deficit is real, visible and growing because the government has failed to demonstrate credible action that can restore public faith.”
He warned that the present approach, including direct engagement with civil society groups without prior inter-party deliberations, is flawed and likely to fail. “Political parties cannot be thrust into discussions with civil society when there’s no clarity on the government’s own stance or approach. You can’t simply send letters asking for nominees without groundwork.”
He further stressed that restoring trust cannot be achieved through political optics. “This trust deficit didn’t arise overnight. And it can’t be addressed with hollow political gestures. It requires serious, multi-level discussions, an honest approach and genuine effort to understand and accommodate the concerns raised.”
He concluded, “I’m watching this development very closely. It’s not just what you do but how you do it that matters. Maybe that’s why some parties are choosing to stay out of it. The government must reflect on that.”
