Editor,
I recently came across a video released on January 11, 2026 by the channel Madiang Entertainment titled, “Wat Riam Sexy Ioh Nga Thombor,” which translates to “Don’t dress sexily or I will assault you.” The title itself is deeply disturbing, and at the time of writing, the video has garnered over half a million views. It immediately suggests justification of sexual assault based on how a woman dresses, a narrative that has long been used to excuse male violence and shift blame onto victims.
This way of thinking is not new. Across the country, in countless rape cases, perpetrators or their defenders often claim that men, “cannot control their desires,” and that women somehow “invite” assault based on their clothing or behaviour. Such statements reveal far more about the character and moral failure of the perpetrators than about the victims they attempt to blame. Sexual assault, no matter in what way you put it, is a conscious act of violence.
When I first saw the video, I genuinely wondered whether it was intended as satire or a critique of such thinking. However, the comment section makes it clear that many viewers believe the video to deliver a “lesson” to women, urging them to dress modestly so as to not “attract” men who allegedly lack self-control and act on impulse; even if that means destroying the life of another. The fact that this message is being praised as “necessary” by members of our society is deeply disturbing to me.
The storyline follows two men who see a woman wearing knee-high boots and a short skirt. They begin cat-calling and following her, clearly making her uncomfortable. When she tries to avoid them, they later discuss her in sexual and dehumanising terms, implying that seeing such women causes their “brains not to function,” while continuing to physically and verbally harass her. Eventually, the men are chased away by an older male figure who is positioned as the woman’s “protector.” However, instead of condemning the men’s action, he immediately criticises the woman’s clothing. He blames her for attracting such attention, ignoring the men’s attempt to harass and assault her. He alleges that the men followed her because they desire her thighs (“ki ibang ia ka lbong phui”) and admits that even he, a married man, feels attracted to her; though he claims restraint only because he has a wife at home.
Young men, he says, “cannot control themselves.” The video goes on to contrast this woman with another who is dressed modestly in a jainkyrshah. The same men express disinterest in her, implying that modestly dressed women are unworthy of attention, in a condescending manner. In this way, women are demeaned on both sides: those who dress “immodestly” are portrayed as temptations responsible for provoking male desire, while those who dress modestly are rendered invisible and undesirable.
Perhaps the most disturbing metaphor used is that of a wrapped versus unwrapped candy. The wrapped candy attracts ants when placed in the ground; the unwrapped one does not. The woman is compared to the unwrapped candy, described as “lyngkhuid” (naked). This analogy strips women of their dignity, objectifies them, and most of all, reduces men to animals who have no control over their instincts. Are men really incapable of rational thought, moral judgment, or self-control?
The hypocrisy of the video becomes even clearer when the same older man later begins harassing the woman himself, touching her and chasing her, stating that he is no longer attracted to his wife at home because she is “old” after giving birth to their children. The woman, hence, is forced to flee repeatedly: from young men and then from the older one.
This reflects a broader pattern in our society, where women are routinely blamed when violence is committed against them. A woman’s choice of fashion shouldn’t be taken as “consent.” Men, I believe, can understand boundaries; they can see when attention is unwanted. They understand language, gestures, resistance, even fear (right?). When a woman says no, asks to be left alone, pulls away, or fights back, the message cannot be mistaken as “consent.” Yet, videos like this push the idea that predatory behaviour is natural and uncontrollable, shifting responsibility away from those who commit harm and instead, placing it on the victims who suffer it.
I strongly believe in our society’s values, ethics and principles; modesty being one of them. However, modesty must apply equally to all genders, both men and women. Violence, coercion, harassment and assault are definitely not modest. They are moral failures and criminal acts.
Yours etc.,
Ibalarishisha Syiem,
Via email
A New Kind of Fear
Editor,
On reading the letter, “Irregularities in our Neighbouring State” written by ‘B. Laitphlang’ (ST January 21, 2026), I was deeply touched and encouraged to rewrite on the same matter.
A similar incident occurred with me and my family, when we were on our first outing to Guwahati. My family included my parents and my little sister. Suddenly two traffic police showed up and they were the people I was expecting to be the ones keeping the law and assisting the citizens. Instead they suddenly asked us to pull over to the side of the road and demanded money right there on the spot without giving any reason.
I was hurt and sad when I saw my parents; the two strongest people I knew, having to swallow their pride and stay silent. There was a heavy, suffocating unfairness in the way we had to pretend. We knew the officer was lying; he knew that we knew. That silent agreement to just, ‘pay and move on’ felt like a betrayal of everything they had taught me about honesty.
My parents taught me integrity and honesty but at that moment none of these two virtues were visible. The officer’s act was inhumane and overcome by greed amounting to cruelty. In the end, I realise that my voice matters. Even though I am only 12 years old now, I knew then that it was wrong as I do now. But I promise to always stand up against any unlawful activity and to voice the truth, as I grow older.
Yours etc.,
Johanan Kharsyiemiong,
Via email
Benami Deals & Limits of ILP
Editor,
Meghalaya’s silent takeover refers to ongoing concerns among indigenous communities that without the Inner Line Permit (ILP) and the use of benami (proxy) land and shop deals by non-tribals threatens their land rights, economic opportunities and cultural identity. The shadow economy in Shillong, driven by unlicensed and undocumented business, undermines legitimate local enterprises by creating unfair competition, eroding consumer confidence and causing significant revenue loss to the Government. This informal sector operates outside the regulatory framework and poses major challenges to the region’s economic development.
The Government loses significant tax revenue (e.g. Professional tax in Meghalaya) and other contributions, which limit funding for public goods infrastructure and services. The question of whether the ( ILP) is a sufficient safeguard for local interests in parts of Meghalaya is a subject of intense debate with many local communities feeling it is an insufficient shield against the demographic and economic pressures. The perception that non-local “outsiders ” are flourishing while the indigenous population struggles is a primary driver behind calls for stricter enforcement and expanded regulations.
Despite the ILP’s intended purpose of protecting indigenous culture, land rights and employment opportunities several factors limit its efficacy. The ILP system can act as a barrier to private investment and tourism, potentially hindering the overall economic development of the region. This lack of local opportunities can drive educated local youth to seek work elsewhere.
Yours etc.,
H.Umdor
Shillong-8
