Editor,
The alarm raised by the proscribed Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council and its general secretary Sainkupar Nongtraw over the presence of military establishments in and around Shillong during ARMEX-1 2026 is not just misplaced—it is historically uninformed and strategically flawed.
Before floating such apprehensions in the public domain, it would be prudent to revisit history. The defence footprint in Shillong and its surrounding areas is not a recent development. Key installations—be it the Indian Air Force’s Eastern Air Command in Upper Shillong, the cantonment zones, or establishments around Umroi—trace their origins back to the era of the British Raj. These were not arbitrarily placed within civilian settlements; they were established first, in what were then sparsely inhabited or strategically chosen locations to secure this sensitive, landlocked frontier.
Civilian expansion came much later.
To now argue that military infrastructure exists “within” civilian areas is to invert reality. If anything, the more relevant question is how urban and residential clusters gradually grew around long-standing defence zones. Blaming the presence of the armed forces for this overlap is not only misleading but also conveniently ignores decades of unplanned urban expansion and administrative acquiescence.
More importantly, the narrative pushed by the HNLC dangerously distorts the role of these establishments. The Northeast is not just any region—it is a strategically critical corridor bordered by multiple countries, with complex geopolitical sensitivities. The presence of defence infrastructure here is not a liability; it is a necessity. These installations are not targets inviting danger—they are shields ensuring deterrence, preparedness, and rapid response capability in a region that has historically required heightened security vigilance.
Exercises like ARMEX-1 2026 are precisely about preparing civilians for contingencies—not because the military is a threat, but because preparedness is a hallmark of responsible governance. To twist such drills into an argument against the existence of defence infrastructure is to undermine both public awareness efforts and national security priorities.
The attempt to invoke international humanitarian norms also rings hollow when stripped of context. Those principles apply in active conflict zones, not as blanket arguments to question long-established defence positioning in a sovereign nation’s territory—especially one with India’s security imperatives in the Northeast.
At its core, this line of criticism appears less about civilian safety and more about manufacturing unease around institutions that have, for decades, contributed to stability in the region. The presence of the armed forces has ensured not just territorial integrity but also the everyday safety of citizens—something that cannot be casually dismissed through selective narratives.
If there is a genuine concern to be addressed, it lies in urban planning and regulated development around sensitive zones—not in questioning the very existence of those zones.
Security cannot be rewritten to suit rhetoric. And history cannot be selectively edited to fit a convenient argument.
Yours etc.
A citizen
