Dr Tumbenthung Humtsoe
Every governmental policy action- especially of far reaching implications and ramifications- must be guided by just political principles, sound economic logic and with the end of promoting social cohesion and harmony; and the entire process of policy making should be characterised by accountability and transparency. What we perceive in the recent creation of the two districts in Nagaland, Niuland and Chümoukedima, is prima facie devoid of all the aforesaid canons of sensible and good governance. In a tribal state infested with the myriad inimical manifestations of tribalism, the government of the day is, at the least, expected to reason with the highest degree of awareness of the same, and therein act with sensibility and caution.
Politically, as a friend wondered, the creation of the districts in question appears as 'ghettoisation' along tribal lines; or as another wondered, 'politics of appeasement'; and still, as another wondered, 'politics of tribalism'. It certainly reeks of sectarian as well as tribal(ism) dog whistle. Such an action unwittingly creates unwarranted suspicion amongst the constituent tribes of our volatile state and engenders an unnecessary posturing of 'us versus them'. The said action thus appears as an institutionalized action of social division; and hence socially undesirable. All these arise for the said creation looks arbitrary, solely guided, if any, by myopic 'destructive politics'.
Needless to mention, the government should be aware of the many fault lines along tribal lines in our social landscape; and should be proactively taking actions to address those with urgency, and not accentuating such fault lines. The unease created by the said administrative intervention can be seen in the expressions of dissent (and even mockery) on social media. The reckoning that went into the said intervention did not consider the interest of the composite Nagas.
Economically, it will lead to an unnecessary increase in administrative cost at a time of burgeoning fiscal problem of the state government. Rationally, the government should be spending more on developmental activities and not on unwarranted non-developmental administrative activities. What's more, the areas of Niuland and Chümoukedima are not embroiled in any administrative problems owing to remoteness, communication or other pressing administrative concerns meriting the said action.
Clearly, the priorities of the government of the day are misplaced. This reinforces the impression that it is neither aware of the plight of the people (or conceivably, callously insensitive to, as the existing plight is too glaring to not take notice of) nor the urgent requirements of the economy. The disquieting statistics concerning the state's economy and the fast deepening fissures in the social milieu merit that, inter alia, there should have already been a High Level Task Force to Tackle Unemployment (comprising of economists and other experts from outside the government), and a similar such institutional arrangement to address tribalism (again comprising of sociologists and other experts from without the government). The going politics of tribalism pursued for short-term political mileage, accentuated by the unholy ad hoc alignment and posturing of the myriad tribal hohos motivated by sinister tribal interest, is a condemnable assault on the idea of 'Naga' as a nation. It will only create a failed society rife with distrusts, divisions and socio-economic ills, which we are already witnessing.
The aforesaid misgivings surrounding the administrative action in question are further fuelled by the lack of justification for the same from the part of the government. An arbitrary dispensing of governance without established procedures, or without regard to established procedures, is the wellspring of trust deficit, corruption and unethical policy-making and implementation thereon. The slightest the government should do is to highlight the rules or criteria followed, the concerns considered; and of course, why the seemingly haste decision in the matter? Concomitantly, why such urgency is not shown in other pressing matters of more salience to the state?
In going before the public, the government should depart from its past behaviour, and give earnest respect to the constituencies it represents. And desist from providing untenable justifications of its actions, which often come to pass as lousy jokes, demeaning of the institution it represents. The going norm of citing the political imbroglio for every problems- the recent example of the blatant rationalization provided for the shamefully poor rankings on SDG index as well as for the opposition Naga Peoples Front (NPF) party’s connivance with the ruling parties to form an opposition-less government- is far from the truth and come to pass as insulting to the electorates. It may be added that the persistence of the evil of extortion is a reflection of the failure of the government. The maintenance of law and order is a basic reason for the existence of the state and its machinery of government, after all.
To move our society away from the evil of tribalism and towards social cohesion cemented by mutual trust, the government on its part should inspire confidence that it is guided, at all times, by the interest of the composite Nagas. The interest of the Nagas is best served if governmental deliberations and the consequent interventions are guided by rationality, equity and justice. Under such circumstances only, the welfare of the marginalised and the deprived in the society can be best attended to.
Earnest care and efforts ought to be made so that governmental actions are not perceived as motivated by vested interests of certain tribe(s). Of course, evolving circumstances may demand positive discriminatory interventions in favour of a specific tribe(s) or area(s). Save such actions, however, any interventions perceived otherwise feeds the toxicity of tribalism; and it is suicidal of the collective whole. In other words, the government should never project an image of itself as a purveyor of tribalism.
At all times, justice should be a rallying point for all Nagas. Towards that end, the government on its part should proactively facilitate in establishing a society wherein rule of law, mutual-trust and fellow-feeling rule supreme. No reasons why the government shouldn't be doing that. And no reasons why the government should sacrifice the interest of the Nagas by means of pedalling the parochial vested-interest of certain politician(s) in power, or that of certain tribe(s) of political influence. A government whose actions constantly create caricature and mockery of itself can neither inspire social change nor create the required institutions for economic prosperity.
In the ultimate analysis, the sort of world the elders of today are begetting to the next generation is obnoxious, to say the least. Elders are perilously failing the young. Needless to mention, we can only progress as 'Nagas' and neither as 'Konyaks', nor as 'Aos versus Sumis', and suchlike. To reiterate, our collective enterprise should be to promote our common cause of overcoming the multi-headed serpent of tribalism; and to progress as 'Nagas'. Towards that end, we have to put aside our seemingly appealing yet insidious sectarian short term considerations, and be driven by long term considerations of rebuilding the idea of 'Nagas' which we inherited from our enlightened forbears.
Kuknalim.
.JPG)
