[ Tenzin Zamba ]
In a democracy, those in power are always under public scrutiny. Questions are asked, criticism is inevitable, and sometimes serious allegations come to the surface. This is not a weakness of the system – it is its strength. But at the same time, there has to be a clear line between an accusation and proven guilt.
The recent controversy surrounding Pema Khandu, the chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, brings this issue into focus.
The allegations suggest that certain government contracts may have been awarded to firms linked to his family members, raising concerns about nepotism and conflict of interest. The matter has reached the Supreme Court of India, which has directed a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Naturally, such claims are serious and deserve careful examination. If there has been any misuse of public office, it must be addressed.
However, an investigation is not the same as a conviction. Our legal system is built on the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. A court-monitored inquiry is meant to find facts, not to pass judgment in advance. When public debate starts treating allegations as if they are already proven, it weakens the very idea of justice.
It is also worth looking at the larger picture. Over the past few years, Arunachal has seen visible changes. Under Khandu’s leadership, there have been improvements in infrastructure, better connectivity, and stronger links with national development initiatives. None of this means that questions should not be asked – but it does mean that leadership should be judged in a balanced way, not only through one controversy that is still under investigation.
Public interest litigations are an important part of democracy, but they are not always free from political or competing interests. That does not make the allegations false, but it does mean that both the media and the public should be careful not to rush to conclusions. Turning an ongoing investigation into a public trial helps no one.
At the same time, there has been a noticeable shift in the law-and-order and protest environment within the state. In earlier years, Arunachal often witnessed frequent protests, bandhs, and lockdowns led by NGOs and student unions, which at times disrupted public life and governance. In recent times, however, such incidents have significantly declined, with a noticeable reduction in large-scale disruptions. This relative stability has contributed to smoother governance and a more predictable environment for development activities. In fact, this moment should be seen as an opportunity. If wrongdoing is found, accountability must be clear and firm. But if the allegations do not hold, then it is equally important to acknowledge that and restore the credibility of the person involved. Both outcomes are part of a fair system.
At the same time, it is hard to ignore the development work that has taken place in the state. Efforts to improve transparency in recruitment through bodies like the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Staff Selection Board have helped rebuild public confidence.
Infrastructure growth has been particularly noticeable. Roads are reaching areas that were once difficult to access. Railway connectivity and new airports have begun to change how people and goods move in and out of the state. These changes are not just about convenience – they are opening up Arunachal to tourism in a way that was not possible earlier. Better access means more visitors, more opportunities for local communities, and a stronger local economy.
There has also been attention to sports and youth development, with the creation of modern facilities such as FIFA-standard football grounds. In social sectors too, there are signs of progress – improving literacy, growing support for entrepreneurship, and policies aimed at inclusive growth. Another important aspect of Khandu’s leadership has been his ability to inspire trust across different sections of society. Despite belonging to a minority community, he has been able to earn broad public confidence, largely due to a perception of honesty and administrative competence. His approach to governance has emphasised inclusivity, bringing together diverse communities without discrimination and fostering a sense of collective participation in the state’s development.
Taken together, these developments suggest a state that is moving forward. For many people in Arunachal, there is a sense that the leadership has direction and intent.
Ultimately, the issue comes down to a simple but important principle: accusations should lead to investigation, not instant judgement. The truth must come from evidence, not assumption. Upholding this balance is what keeps a democracy both accountable and fair. (The contributor is pursuing PhD at the University of Delhi)
