Dr. Salikyu Sangtam
Tetso College
Change is in the air, it seems. This is evident in the blaring demands for clean elections, good roads, women’s reservation, societal advancements, and an end to backdoor appointments, corruptions, nepotisms, etc. Countless NGOs along with equally innumerable other organizations have heroically on their own offered themselves, even though not invited, to be the agents of change. Many of us have even begun to expect that the demands currently occupying our newspapers and societal discourses will materialize, at least in our lifetime. What’s more, we also see a proliferation in admirable new leaders—young and old—from all sections of the society valiantly volunteering themselves, even gallantly going against the sensible advice of others, to lead our society. Given such unraveling of events, one is almost tempted to give in to the euphoria of ‘change.’
Nevertheless, it is essential to keep our feet on the ground, for what the current trends signify is: we seem to have adopted the idea that our innumerable noble leaders and NGOs, of the most upright characters, can transform the present corrupt sociopolitical structure and construct a new social system based on idealized reveries of no corruptions, no backdoor appointments, no nepotisms, and where women have more or less equal role in the operatives of our society. All these expectations seem rather unrealistic and are bound to disappoint our current rosy expectations. Certainly, everyone ought to indulge in idealism every now and then, but it is never a prudent basis from which to form an idea of a society, in the time to come, wholly based on unrealistic expectations framed by ignoring the existential societal realities, where anything wrong or unethical can be jettisoned for good. And only ethically and virtuously upright conducts prevail throughout the society.
Of course, I do appreciate that sensible persons do not entertain such expectations, but a majority of us, sadly, do. In other words, most of us implicitly, even unconsciously, expect an end to corruptions, nepotisms, backdoor appointments, venal elections, etc. Thus, we demand ‘Clean Elections,’ ‘Good Roads,’ ‘End to Corruptions,’ ‘End to Backdoor Appointments and Nepotisms,’ and so on, as though we can live without them.
The point is, we must be modest in our expectations as to what is actually possible and attainable, for the reality is far too complex than what our mind is able to conceive. And in most cases, we are ensnared into the trap of equating idealized expectations with reality. If we expect much from the modest changes being proposed, it creates a discrepancy between people’s expectations and what is actually materialized. This, in turn, creates additional disturbance and problems, which our society can certainly do without. When aspirations are unrealized, people become frustrated; thereby, creating a psychological need to compensate for the un-materialized objectives. That “psychological need” to vent off the frustration to compensate for the unfulfilled aspirations manifests itself through social violence and other forms of social delinquencies. As such, a society inhabited by frustrated citizens will invariably lead to numerous social disorders and delinquencies creating more problems and, in the process, disturbing the whole society—be it through tribalism, violent behaviors, domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and drug addiction, among many others. Therefore, it is essential that our demands and expectations ought to be based on societal realities—i.e. political, socio-economic, and cultural conditions—of our society.
Alas! We must, therefore, realize that ‘clean elections’ are not attainable. There invariably will be buying of votes and a whole lot of other ignoble deals that will go on during elections, whether we like it or not. Elections can never be clean, at least in our society. Much in the same way, there always will be corruptions, backdoor appointments, nepotisms (Don’t forget that ‘corruption’ is itself a very broad term, there are numerous forms of corruptions, not just one; much is also applicable to the terms ‘nepotism’ and ‘backdoor appointments’ as well. Furthermore, nepotism and backdoor appointments are themselves various manifestations of corruptions. Hopefully, the readers can appreciate the complexities involved). The best we can hope for is to lessen the degree of corruptions, nepotisms, and backdoor appointments. As for roads, it will take another generation or so before Nagaland is furnished with good roads. Because let’s be honest, if individuals responsible for constructing roads entirely utilize the capital, which has been allocated, in highway constructions, then what will they take home as profit? Hence, we mustn’t expect good roads at least in the near future.
As for women’s reservation, it’s quite clear to any astute observers that our society is not ready for the reservation. Our socio-cultural values and beliefs have neither progressed nor matured to the stage where such steps are feasible. It’s no wonder, the opponents and proponents of this issue continue to address the matter in an incoherent, and sometimes even in a muddled, manner; thereby, missing some of its subtle nuances. Even if we acquiesce, for the sake of argument, to the claim that women’s reservation will benefit and empower women, as well as reduce corruptions, nepotisms, and make local bodies more transparent and accountable, the fact remains that in practice, very few competent women will actually hold seats and win elections. Because, elections—no matter the gender—will always be venal, not clean; the unscrupulousness of elections does not discriminate. Moreover, it’s also an unthinkable a proposition to assert that women’s reservation will benefit women as a whole, because it will not. This is because, the bill is not designed to benefit women en masse, in India or in Nagaland; rather it is intended exclusively to include women in the realms of law making and societal governance. That is it, nothing more. And as to what the elected women representatives do in their tenure is solely based on their own interests, either they’ll actually work for the benefit of women en masse or they’ll give priorities to their own private self-interests, and my guess is that the majority will opt for the latter. In this case, the best scenario we can hope for is: there will be women representatives in local civic bodies. It is folly to expect anything more.
My observations about the current trends may be erroneous. In the meantime, however, we face numerous impediments that not only burgeon our unrealistic expectations but also proliferate our complete lack of understanding of some of our society’s most pressing issues—which we display ever so often. Out of which, one of the major impediments, in my opinion, is the doctrine of habitually designating politicians and bureaucrats as leaders along with its corollary: our obsessional desire for government jobs. When fully considered, the linkages of these two aspects demonstrate the manner in which our society comprehends the term ‘change’ and their consequent effects inhibiting the fullest realization of any, even small, societal changes.
We habitually entitle politicians and bureaucrats/government servants as community/society leaders. But, by that same logic, I should be a Michelin Star Chef because I can boil an egg. Hopefully, the readers can appreciate the logical fallacy in designating someone as a leader by the virtue of being a politician or a bureaucrat. The problem which we consistently tend to overlook, implicitly or explicitly, is: leaders require sets of qualities very different from those essential for politicians or bureaucrats. In addition to the aforementioned problem is our society’s obsession with securing government employment since it not only elevates a person to the position of a ‘leader’ as default, but it also opens the means to secure jobs for one’s fellow tribesmen; allocate contracts to one’s friends, families, tribes; and secure access to one’s share of capital from the department’s budget and contracts. In other words, a means to nepotism, backdoor appointments, control over public resources, and allocations of contracts for government projects; all of which can be categorized under the term ‘corruption.’ As such, society designates them, as well as the politicians, as ‘leaders’ because of their socio-political connections and control over state financial resources, rather than their leadership skills, which serves only as a pretext to secure patronages. Unless these elements are tackled, even the simplest of proposed societal changes can hardly materialize since they invariably require the unwrapping of the Pandora Box, which no person with a vested interest in the existing system will allow. This is why our society’s demands for ‘women’s reservation,’ and an end to ‘corruption, backdoor appointments, nepotism,’ etc. are unrealistic.
All we can hope for is that the innumerable virtuous leaders, NGOs, and other societal organizations, who most magnanimously volunteered themselves without even being invited, are aware of such intricacies and the difficult task involved in navigating through such labyrinths that are interwoven into the very fabric of our society. But on the other hand, I am sure they are aware of all these minutiae and have planned out rational schemes to confront such problems; after all, the majority of our righteous leaders—young and old—know everything under the sun.
