A wave of quiet grief swept through Shillong on April 28, as most shops, markets, and businesses across the city closed their doors in a spontaneous tribute to the victims of the recent Pahalgam terror attack. The voluntary shutdown served as a powerful show of solidarity with the families of the 26 people who lost their lives in the April 22 incident. Throughout the day, the streets of Shillong wore a deserted look. Usually bustling areas such as Khyndailad, Laitumkhrah, and Polo saw minimal activity as residents chose to stay home in remembrance. The silence across the city stood as a stark contrast to the tragic violence that had unfolded in Pahalgam, uniting Shillong’s citizens in a collective moment of mourning. The previous evening, on April 27, emotions had run high at Khyndailad (Police Bazaar), where hundreds gathered for a candlelight vigil. Chants condemning terrorism and calls for peace filled the air, as people from different walks of life stood shoulder to shoulder in grief and protest.
However, the manner in which the shutdown was initiated sparked debate. The Hynñiewtrep Integrated Territorial Organization (HITO), a prominent pressure group in Meghalaya, voiced strong opposition to what it termed an “enforced” closure. HITO President Donbok Dkhar, speaking to local media, criticized the Shillong Citizens Forum—the group that issued the shutdown call—for allegedly pressuring businesses to close. “Solidarity should come from the heart, not through coercion,” Dkhar said, emphasizing that any forced closure amounts to a “bandh,” which HITO fundamentally opposes. In a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of East Khasi Hills district, HITO clarified its position. While expressing deep sympathy for the Pahalgam victims, it argued that democratic protests must respect individual freedom. The group drew a comparison with Kashmir, where many recent shutdowns have been entirely voluntary, driven by public sentiment without external pressure.
HITO further questioned the legitimacy of the Shillong Citizens Forum, raising concerns about the group’s transparency, leadership, and alleged outside influences. According to intelligence inputs cited in the letter, the forum is suspected of being remotely influenced by a businessman based in Kolkata—a claim that has added another layer of controversy to the issue.
