Last week, this column has pointed out how the powerful observation in the opening lines of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, a historical first published in 1859 feels acutely familiar and verifiable in the contemporary world affairs, and more so, in the context of uncertainty looming large on Naga political issue. A week after, the outlook is more or less the same.
In the recent weeks, the quest of ‘honourable and inclusive solution’ to the protracted ‘Naga Peace Talk’, paradoxically, is raising more trepidation and confusion among the populace, while seemingly entering into the concluding stage. Rather than a genuine feeling of respite any agreement is supposed to generate; people are more confused and troubled, propelling many to make populist stand. Ironically, the question of inclusiveness is conspicuously assuming a distant goal in the mounting narrative, usurped by the narrative of pragmatism and contemporary realities.
Discussions on the issue, both on social and mainstream media, are increasingly becoming one-upmanship exercise – each side building a huge echo chamber around them. The current zeitgeist is accentuated by a plethora of information on social media engulfing the participants in a vicious cycle. Evidently, no one is immune.
“Is there going to be a ‘war’ in Nagaland?” An impressionable class IX student asked an elder recently. Surprised and alarmed, the latter asked, “Why are you asking such question?”. Apparently, it was the topical topic of conversation at her school. The recent ‘military drill’ and heightened rhetoric over the peace talks, slowly ‘trickling down’ from top to bottom were enough to make the student wonder.
Given the state of affairs the region is endowed with, such narratives flowing into casual exchanges can be construed as ‘collateral.’ However, the consequences of long term conflict on mental health appear to be disturbingly engendering new frontier. While rhetoric, rightly aggravated by public discontent over the status quo and questionable governance over the years by ‘power that be,’ has created proclivity towards divisiveness instead of a strategic cohesion; regretfully, it is now on the verge of being imperiously overwhelmed by populism, a very enticing but a short term remedy.
At these uncertain times, it is also incumbent upon the present legislators of the state, particularly the political executive, not to be a mere spectator to the unfolding scenario but raise critical question, while at the same time allaying any concerns, especially law and order situation. A deafening silence from political executive against the backdrop of a security overdrive by the State’s machinery has fuelled the notion that the former has been already rendered ineffectual in the current scheme of things. The allegation levelled by opposition and other, in this regard, regarding the ruling bench is not without basis.
Together, with shifting loyalties, amidst the vocal voices for unity and concerns from many quarters, also begs the question: Whether any agreement, brought about without unequivocal endorsement by all stakeholders, would results in a ‘permanent and honourable’ solution.
At this critical juncture, along with assertion of their rights, every stakeholder requires a vital time-out: to take a pause and ask whether the echo chamber is blinding and limiting their perspectives. The path to reconciliation and the centrality of unity never has been felt so acute. Amidst the concerns and imperative of coming into a logical conclusion, each argument must be critically examined and holistically fused with historical perspective.
