Controversy erupts in Teliamura after SDM office issues rejoinder denying boat malfunction during disaster management training. Tripura Times counters with video evidence and eyewitness claims, raising questions over emergency preparedness, equipment reliability, and transparency in disaster response drills.
A controversy has surfaced in Tripura’s Khowai district after the Sub-Divisional administration of Teliamura issued an official rejoinder challenging a news report about an alleged malfunctioning rescue boat during a disaster management training session on March 7. Highlighted technical difficulties with the boat used in the practical training exercise for Civil Defence volunteers.
In response, the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Teliamura released a clarification stating that the boat was fully functional and that the practical training session was successfully completed despite a brief delay during startup.
According to the official rejoinder, the boat’s engine took approximately five minutes to start due to what officials described as a “very minor technical matter.” The administration explained that the engine required a short warm-up period before becoming operational and that the issue was resolved immediately by the disaster management team present at the site.
“The boat was fully functional and the practical session for the new Civil Defence volunteers was completed successfully,” the statement said. It further added that similar disaster preparedness training sessions had already been conducted earlier this year.
Officials also noted that three separate batches of training exercises were successfully carried out using the same equipment, including the boat in question. The administration argued that the report published earlier misinterpreted the situation and could create unnecessary speculation among the public.
“The publication of this misinterpretation of facts may cause unwarranted speculation among the public and may tarnish the reputation of the Teliamura Sub-Divisional Administration,” the rejoinder stated. Authorities urged the newspaper to publish the clarification prominently in the interest of fairness, truth, and responsible journalism.
However, the editorial team of Tripura Times has responded to the administration’s clarification, maintaining that the original report reflected the actual situation observed during the training exercise.
In its reply, the newspaper asserted that the official rejoinder presented only a partial account of events. According to the publication, video footage, still photographs, and eyewitness accounts collected during the training indicated that the boat’s engine experienced significant technical difficulties.
The newspaper claims that the engine was effectively non-functional at the time of the training demonstration and had to be temporarily removed and repaired before the boat could operate. Photographic evidence reportedly shows the engine being carried separately to the boat while technicians attempted to fix the problem.
Sources present at the site told the publication that technical personnel were eventually called in to restore the engine and make the boat operational. Only after several hours, the training session was reportedly conducted briefly.
While acknowledging that the training exercise eventually took place, the newspaper argued that it was conducted later and only for a short period, primarily to complete the formal requirement of the program.
The dispute highlights a broader issue concerning disaster preparedness and equipment readiness during training exercises, especially in vulnerable regions where emergency response infrastructure plays a crucial role.
| Also Read: TBSE Doubles Teachers’ Exam Duty Pay |
Observers say transparent communication between local administrations and the media remains essential to maintaining public trust. As disaster management training programs continue across Tripura, questions regarding equipment maintenance and operational readiness may continue to draw public attention.
Both sides now appear to stand by their respective positions, leaving the matter open to further clarification as additional evidence and perspectives emerge.
