Our society needs to be fully conscious that we are treading into two sequestered realms — the ‘individual interest’ and the ‘public discourse’ with the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde syndrome. We also need to recognize and be fully aware that ‘individual interest’ and the ‘public discourse’ are rather fast drifting apart from each other. In other words, our society is entering a new phase, and a new crisis.
Integrating these ‘individual interests’ and the ‘public discourse’ into a seamless unit is never going to be possible, but it is imperative to ameliorate these daunting circumstances by making the ‘individual interest’ and the ‘public discourse’ co-ordinate with each other.
But how do we begin addressing this striking fact in thinking about a way out of the crisis?
Before anything else, it is imperative to find out the reasons why our ‘individual interest’ is often not determined or affected by the grand decisions of the ‘public discourse’ pertaining to the issues of corruption, clean election, environment, the Naga people’s movement, etcetera. We also need to find out which of the two—‘individual interest’ or ‘public discourse’—is being treated as a ‘sidewalk’.
Regarding the ‘public discourse’, right from the top apex body/tribe hoho level down to the colony level, their stand is against corruption, for clean election, for protection of our environment, for Naga solidarity and so on. However, once outside the ‘public discourse,’ our individual concerns, consensus and principles seem to dissipate. Is it because the grand decisions of the ‘public discourse’ are never close to home and are impractical? The flaw reflects a profound and troubling reality. This is where one shudders to ponder about our destiny.
Absence of a sense of allegiance to the issue could be one reason for the stark contrast between the ‘individual interest’ and the ‘public discourse’. Our approach has become more mechanical in nature which has also very much become the considered theme of the operative side. Such a trend has been regarded by many as being practical or being pragmatic, which in many cases are ‘body sans soul’.
Now, we need to urgently identify all those factors constraining the ‘public discourse’ and the ‘individual interest’ from co-coordinating with each other. In the event of the ‘public discourse’ and the ‘individual interest’ co-coordinating with each other, the grand decisions and stands taken for the collective good of the society in the ‘public discourse’ will constrain the ‘individual interest’ to a certain extent in a way that the people will become campaigning individuals of their organizations/colonies when it comes to issues such as corruption, environment, clean election, etcetera.