Editor,
The call by the Voice of the People Party (VPP) to preserve the status quo of the Deficit Grant-in-Aid system is a stark reminder of the state’s tendency to cling to colonial-era administrative frameworks. It is essential to remember that this system was not a homegrown innovation, but a legacy inherited from the erstwhile undivided Assam government.
Ironically, while the VPP demands the preservation of this system, there is a profound disconnect in the regional discourse: Assam, the very state from which this model originated, has largely moved away from the Deficit Grant-in-Aid framework for its contemporary institutional management. The fact that Meghalaya continues to treat this antiquated structure as the bedrock of its higher education sector highlights a dangerous stagnation that hampers structural reform and fiscal flexibility.
To address the embarrassing performance of the state in recent national education rankings, Meghalaya must shift its focus from protecting obsolete administrative shells to fostering institutional excellence. The persistent reliance on a decades-old pay scale and funding model, while comfortable for vested interests, has failed to incentivize the research output, infrastructural modernization, and competitive faculty performance required to compete on a national stage.
If the state government continues to prioritise the preservation of the “grand old days” over meritocratic and modern educational governance, it will inevitably continue to suffer the consequences of low institutional rankings and mediocre academic outcomes. The education sector needs a radical overhaul in strategy, not a reinforcement of colonial-era dependencies.
Furthermore, there is a glaring inconsistency in the socio-political demands of the state’s leadership and its people. There is a persistent, loud advocacy for the implementation of the Inner Line Permit (ILP)—a relic of British-era administrative control—which is often championed as a necessary mechanism for indigenous protection. Yet, clinging to both the ILP and the Deficit Grant-in-Aid system signals a broader, more concerning societal preference for “protectionism” over “progress.” The tribesmen of Meghalaya and the political class must realise that an identity defined solely by the preservation of past instruments will eventually become a cage. Just as the world has moved beyond the economic and administrative paradigms of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Meghalaya must reconcile the fact that policies designed for a different era are fundamentally ill-equipped for the demands of 2026.
Ultimately, the VPP’s demand reflects a mindset that is deeply rooted in the past, failing to acknowledge that global and national educational landscapes have transformed. While the party frames its plea as an act of fairness and protection for teachers, it fails to present a vision for how this system will actually elevate the quality of education for the students of tomorrow.
If Meghalaya is to ever escape the cycle of regional underperformance, it must cultivate the political courage to dismantle systems that were “good enough for the past” but are undeniably insufficient for the modern age. Progress requires the courage to discard the comfortable, inherited scripts of history in favour of a bold, adaptive future that prioritizes quality and efficiency over the preservation of colonial-era relics.
Yours etc.
Rajiv Roy
A citizen
