Editor,
It is often said that Shillong is a divided city. Divided by tribe, divided by tongue, divided by faith and divided occasionally even by traffic jams of biblical proportions. We have become experts in recognizing our differences, cataloguing them with the zeal of museum curators—this person belongs to that community, this vote belongs to that political party. And yet, despite our divisions, I am delighted to report that Shillong has finally achieved unity—thanks to its tireless and impartial benefactors: the thieves.
Yes, the thieves of Shillong stand as the city’s last true secularists. They neither check your surname nor your denomination before lightening your wallet. They do not pause to ask if you worship in a church, a temple, or at the altar of Sunday karaoke. They spare no thought for your dialect—they are linguistically inclusive. In fact, they seem to carry out their noble profession with an equality of purpose.
Ask around, and you will discover this shared brotherhood of victimhood. The professor has lost his laptop, the shopkeeper his cash, the homemaker her jewellery, the tourist his phone. A thousand prayers, a thousand curses, one united sigh. Who knew that universal suffering could be Shillong’s answer to the spirit of fraternity?
Perhaps this is what “unity in diversity” was meant to look like. Not through grand speeches or unity marches, but through the humble pickpocket and the bold burglar, who reminds us, hand in pocket, that beneath our quarrels we stand together—empty-pursed, but together.
Yours etc,
Shekhar Singh
Via email
A call for humanity and evidence-based action
Editor,
I write as someone who has worked in the field of drug rehabilitation and harm reduction for over thirteen years. The recent viral videos depicting the brutal assault of alleged injecting drug users are profoundly disturbing. Such incidents appear to have escalated following reports of syringe stabbings. While these reports must be investigated with utmost seriousness, this cannot serve as a licence for mob justice. If individuals are indeed culpable, the law must be allowed to take its course; if not, those inflicting violence are themselves no less criminal.
India already possesses a clear legal framework. The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 prohibits discrimination against people living with HIV and those at risk, including people who inject drugs (PWID). It also affirms their right to access vital harm-reduction services such as the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme (NSEP), designed to curb the spread of HIV and other infections. These measures do not condone drug use; rather, they save lives, reduce harm, and open pathways to treatment and rehabilitation.
International evidence is unequivocal. Portugal, since decriminalising personal possession of drugs in 2001 and investing in counselling, treatment, and employment support, has seen marked reductions in HIV infections, overdose deaths, and drug-related crime. Switzerland and Germany have pursued similar strategies, combining rehabilitation, psychological support, and structured employment programmes — restoring lives whilst enhancing public safety.
India must likewise adopt evidence-based policies that temper enforcement against traffickers with compassion for those battling dependence. Violence and humiliation do not eradicate drug use; they merely drive it further underground, placing both users and the wider public at greater risk.
We must take the higher road — one of humanity, reason, and proven effectiveness — protecting our youth, upholding the rule of law, and building healthier communities.
Yours etc.,
A Thangkhiew,
Shillong
Response to Bhogtoram Mawroh’s letter
Editor,
I write in response to the letter by Bhogtoram Mawroh, titled “Why Indulge in Disinformation,” which was his response to my last letter published in The Shillong Times on August 29, 2025. Bhogtoram in his article and letter has been saying a lot of things which are not true. He even spins a false narrative about the demand for a Territorial Army by pressure groups. I wonder why he made such delusional statements.
Bhogtoram states that he is not against the idea of a Territorial Army,’ but his entire argument is against the demand for a Territorial Army by the pressure groups. Meanwhile, he stated that he’s confused about what a Territorial Army actually is and what the groups demanding it are actually asking for. If he’s unclear about the difference between what a Territorial Army is and what the groups are demanding, then why is he so quick to jump to conclusions? Why is he hesitant to meet with the leaders of these groups and seek clarification from them instead of confusing the general public by writings to the newspaper?
In fact, the demand for a Territorial Army in our state is not new. This demand was reiterated by Paul Lyngdoh, a minister in the present government, recently, after some pressure groups staged a protest in Shillong under the aegis of the North East Students’ Organisation (NESO). The demand of these pressure groups is straightforward: to create a Territorial Army for the purpose of controlling and overseeing the illegal entry and exit of people from outside, and similarly to control other illegal activities. It can be part-time or permanent; it depends on the government how to properly arrange, provide for, and implement this task.
Bhogtoram’s lament feels like the government lacks a clear policy and sufficient expertise to properly implement this project. Further, pressure groups like the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) have long been united in their opposition to the permanent settlement of outsiders. Many members and leaders of these organizations have faced imprisonment; some have even lost their lives in the struggle against the influx of outsiders. Since 1979, the Anti-Foreigners Movement has been active in our Khasi land, where outsiders have asserted their presence and clashed with indigenous people. If not for the resistance of these organizations, along with the common people, our state might have followed a similar trajectory to Tripura, where the indigenous population now constitutes only about 31%. The demand by pressure groups for a Territorial Army is well-founded, and it depends on the government to properly implement and manage this task.
I never called anyone a traitor and would like to ask Bhogtoram to refrain from attributing fabricated words to me that I never said. What does he mean by saying, “I am all for protecting our borders, but I do not support doing so through an armed militia (which is not the Territorial Army)”? When did the pressure groups demand that the government arm the common people? What led him to assume that our youth would rebel against the government or join militant groups after serving in the Territorial Army? I wonder why Bhogtoram has such a negative mindset and is indirectly expressing hostility toward the pressure groups. This negative mindset has caused confusion for both himself and the readers of his writings.
I suggest that Bhogtoram instead of focusing on the perceived negatives of the groups’ demands and creating confusion in the media, should instead offer constructive suggestions and make demands from the government if he genuinely cares about protecting our Jaitbynriew. I wonder if he has ever thought as to what would happen to our community if it is dominated by outsiders.
Yours etc.,
Carmel Fedrick Malngiang,
Sohra