By H.H. Mohrmen
While politicians fight battles for power and political status, switching from one party to another in pursuit of their vested interests, another battle is unfolding on a different front. As politicians cross party lines to secure their positions, the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) is taking the fight against the government over the alleged corruption within the police force. One battle is about power and political survival; the other is about accountability and moral authority.
KSU Is on the Moral High Ground
In the current imbroglio, with the government and the KSU at loggerheads, the organisation is taking its battle to the public. It is seeking to win the hearts and minds of the people by questioning the integrity of institutions entrusted with protecting them. The video showing police personnel collecting money from trucks transporting goods along the Shillong Bypass, exposed by KSU members, has caused considerable embarrassment to the police force. What might otherwise have been dismissed as another allegation became difficult to ignore when the incident was captured on camera.
A Surprise, Yet No Surprise at All
For the public, however, the incident is hardly surprising. Allegations of illegal collections from trucks have surfaced repeatedly through media reports and other channels. Anyone who has travelled along the highway connecting Guwahati and Silchar may have observed police personnel standing by the roadside as trucks pass. In some places, truck helpers appear to be directed towards designated collectors near police stations or outposts. In other instances, they seem to know exactly where to go without being told. There is a Pnar saying that aptly captures this situation: “Da sarom da uwa peit ïa uwa eit,” which means that it is the person who witnesses the act of defecation, rather than the one who commits it, who feels ashamed. Such observations have fuelled public suspicion that the practice is not merely the work of individuals acting independently. The apparent regularity of these transactions raises serious questions about how such a system could continue without attracting the attention of those responsible for supervising the personnel involved.
If these collections are unauthorised, the matter goes beyond individual misconduct. The crucial question is not merely who actually collects money, but who organised, tolerated or benefited from the alleged practice. Only a credible investigation can establish the answers.
Taking Responsibility and Showing Courage
The KSU’s latest expose carries significance beyond the allegations against the police. It comes amid a confrontation with the government following the arrest of KSU leaders over a rally that reportedly resulted in violence and a law and order crisis. The leaders maintained that the organisation had neither directly participated in the violence nor instructed its volunteers to engage in unruly behaviour. They also stated that the rally had begun with a prayer. Nevertheless, they accepted responsibility for the consequences of an event they had organised, arguing that they could not simply walk away from what had happened under their watch.
The leaders’ willingness to face the consequences, rather than disown the event, may have strengthened their standing among sections of the public. It also creates a striking contrast with the government’s response to allegations involving its own machinery.
Mere Eyewash!
The government’s response to the alleged highway collections reportedly included suspending the personnel caught on camera and transferring the officer in charge of the police station concerned. Suspending a few personnel and transferring an officer do not establish the extent of the alleged wrongdoing. Nor do they answer whether others were involved or whether the practice continued through institutional negligence or complicity. The most pressing question is whether the action was intended to shield those at the helm of power who masterminded the entire illegal operation.
The KSU has also alleged that the shed where the collections were made was demolished despite its potential relevance as a crime scene. If established, this would raise further questions about the preservation of evidence. An impartial investigation must determine what happened, who ordered the demolition and whether any evidence was compromised.
Who Will Hold the Government Accountable?
The KSU has raised a fundamental question of democratic accountability: who will hold the government responsible when institutions under its authority are accused of wrongdoing? The question becomes even more uncomfortable in light of the remark attributed to one of the Deputy Chief Minister: “Ngi pynbiej man ka san snem, ki ngop ruh man ka san snem,” which can be interpreted as suggesting that politicians manipulate the public every five years and voters fall for it each time. If this interpretation is correct, the remark implies that the government retains power by deceiving the very people it is supposed to serve.
Such a remark raises a fundamental question: does a government that admits, even implicitly, to manipulating voters possess the moral authority to lecture others on responsibility, let alone claim the legitimacy to remain in power?
If elected representatives expect citizens to trust them, they must demonstrate that trust through their actions. Accountability cannot be demanded of student organisations, political opponents or ordinary citizens while allegations involving government institutions are treated merely as an inconvenience.
If illegal collections have been taking place over an extended period, how could they have continued without attracting the attention of senior officers? If the alleged network operates on a substantial scale, who supervises it, and where does the money go?
The possibility of a wider network must be investigated, and responsibility established through facts. The government should initiate such an inquiry as an opportunity to distinguish individual misconduct from systemic failure.
CWhen the incumbent Director General of Police took charge, she expressed her determination to end highway extortion by police personnel, as reported by The Shillong Times on May 20, 2024. Yet the latest expose suggests that the problem has not been conclusively resolved. While it remains unclear whether the DGP deliberately chose to remain silent or was prevented from acting against highway extortion, the continued prevalence of this illegal practice by police along the entire stretch of the national highway raises a troubling question: could officials higher up in the hierarchy be involved in the operation?
I am reminded of a retired police officer I once met who lamented the condition into which the department had fallen. He told me that when he joined the force, he wore the uniform with pride. By the time he retired, he was saddened by the deterioration he had witnessed in the institution he had once served so proudly. He reminds us that allegations of corruption damage not only the reputation of the police but also the morale of honest officers. When misconduct persists, the entire force comes under suspicion, and public confidence inevitably suffers.
Acknowledgement Is the First Step
It is often said that the first step towards resolving a crisis is acknowledging that one exists. The government cannot restore public confidence if it treats every expose as an isolated embarrassment rather than an opportunity to confront a potentially serious institutional problem.
The way forward requires political will. The allegations must be investigated independently, and those responsible punished. Those found guilty must face appropriate legal and disciplinary consequences, regardless of rank and position. A government that refuses to confront credible allegations against its own institutions weakens its moral authority to pass judgment on others.
This brings us back to the battles unfolding in the state. While politicians change parties and alliances in pursuit of power and status, the KSU has placed public accountability at the centre of its confrontation with the government. Whether the organisation sustains its moral standing will depend on its own conduct in the future. At the same time the government’s credibility will depend on its willingness to address these allegations fairly and transparently.
The ultimate test is not who wins the political argument or commands the loudest public supports. It is whether the truth is established and justice is done. If the government fails to act decisively, one can only hope that the judiciary will take appropriate notice of credible reports and exercise its powers where warranted. Martin Luther King Junior said, “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one… I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”
Democracy cannot survive on elections alone. It also depends on institutions that are accountable, citizens willing to question authority and governments that understand that power is a public trust, not a license to evade responsibility. In the battle between political power and moral authority, the government must remember that the latter cannot be claimed through words. It must be earned through action.