For so long Naga society has allowed its situation to be conveniently limited to the interests and viewpoints of ‘others.’ In the process, the ‘Naga vision’ and the ‘Naga course’ have been distorted to a great extent. This is so because the ‘others’ have taken strategic advantages of our weakness for comforts and convenience by employing a plethora of alluring ‘projects’. As a result, our situation has been reduced to that of a ‘beneficiary’ or a ‘package’. In short, the collective Naga position—the Naga legacy, the Naga vision and the Naga aspiration—has been badly ‘assaulted’, diluted and distorted. In other words, we have ‘hurt’ the collective Naga position.
Given this reality, Naga society should start engaging in a two level reconciliation process, such that, the other approach has to be one where we ‘reconcile’ with our ‘assaulted position’ (the Naga legacy, the Naga vision and the Naga aspiration).
This level of reconciliation will consolidate originality in our assertion for dignity. It will also reduce the level of ‘regionalism’ and tribalism in Naga society. In other words, it will make the collectivity of the Naga course more pronounced. Such reconciliation will also rebuild our moral landscape. It will also sharpen our consciousness on our collective position and rights. To describe it in short, such move will strengthen our emotional linkage with the ‘Naga moorings’.
We have enough of vivid ‘symptoms’ of such ‘hurt’ position of a peoples’ movement.
One glaring ‘symptom’ is that, there seems to be little agreement, from one Naga ‘region’ to another Naga ‘region’, about what constitutes the Nagas’ aspiration. In doing so, so many wider needs are unmet.
When our bounden duty should have been to ensure all the ‘commentaries’ left from the Naga Club strike to the bone or closer to it, we are here busy helping the diverting role of the ‘others’. This is also another glaring ‘symptom’ of our ‘hurt’ position. Such ‘hurt’ position has brought about a great loss of ability to recognize and appreciate the materials which constitute a peoples’ movement.
It is time we find out what it takes to ‘reconcile’ with a ‘hurt’ position of a peoples’ movement.
To begin with, we need to get the feel of the situation of the initial days of our movement. In doing so, it is extremely necessary not to exaggerate the historical novelty.
In another level, opportunities for open and participatory dialogue amongst all sections of the Naga people beyond what is provided by sectarian politics of tribal institutions is also necessary. The conversation of new visions is important as opined by many commentators in recent times. Going to the heart of people-hood, both its depth and values is also an important measure.