CORRESPONDENT
SHILLONG: Did the All India Congress Committee (AICC) overstep its authority in 2017 when it allegedly dictated the removal of senior ministers Prestone Tynsong and Sniawbhalang Dhar from the Mukul Sangma Cabinet barely six months before the Assembly elections? The question has now returned to the centre stage after Dr Mukul Sangma, for the first time, publicly acknowledged that he was “forced” to drop both leaders in August 2017 — a move widely seen as politically reckless and constitutionally questionable.
Dr Sangma’s revelation challenges the very core of party–government relations. He argued that such interference amounted to a direct assault on India’s federal values. The former Chief Minister asked pointedly: “What is the prerogative of a Chief Minister? The members of the Cabinet shall remain in office at the pleasure of the Chief Minister. Isn’t it the fact?”
His allegation raises a politically explosive question for Congress:
Did the AICC’s so-called ‘high command culture’ override constitutional discretion, disrupt Meghalaya’s governance structure, and trigger long-term political fragmentation?
His criticism was unambiguous: the Congress high command had overridden the constitutional autonomy vested in a Chief Minister.
“……… with complete disrespect to the sanctity of the Constitution, your so-called high command will dictate you — put Mr A, throw Mr B, put Mr C, throw Mr Z. This is what has happened. You have seen it in Meghalaya.”
He questioned the political wisdom behind the decision. “Do you drop a minister just six months before an election?” he asked, recalling how internal upheavals had destabilized the party ahead of the 2018 polls.
Dr Mukul also linked the 2017 controversy to a broader national critique. “We are strong as a nation because of our federal structure. But today most of the national parties have tried to weaken this federal structure. That is one of the reasons why I left Congress.”
He reminded that while a Chief Minister is accountable to the legislature, a national party high command is not:
“Now, putting Mr A, B, C, D who may not be performing… the Cabinet is collectively accountable to the legislature, not to the political party, please remember it.”
The former CM suggested that such interference can cripple governance itself. “If from Delhi they dictate Karnataka, they dictate Meghalaya — put Mr A, put Mr B, put Mr C who may not be delivering, who may be shuttling around as a globetrotter — then how do you run the government? Governance is a serious thing. It’s not a joke.”
His remarks culminated in a broader warning on the state of governance and the rising demand for realignment. “Conglomeration of political parties — this is the desire of the people. Education is in a mess, the health sector is in a mess, the whole aspect of governance is in a mess… posting, transfers, transferring DCs, SPs, different officers… lack of manpower in the police force.”
As Meghalaya moves towards the next political cycle, Dr Mukul Sangma’s disclosure revives the central question with renewed urgency:
In 2017, did the AICC cross constitutional lines and disrupt Meghalaya’s political architecture — and will the reverberations shape the state’s political alliances as 2028 approaches?
Also Read: Arunachal CS reviews key projects, calls for optimal use of new assets