Time and time again, we hear Naga men and women in positions of power not just stressing upon the need for a change in Naga mindset and way of thinking; but asserting that it is the right way forward. There is an irony in such an assertion and is a contradiction at best which reveals the colonial dilemma between tradition and modernity, particularly in the context of so called tribal societies. To charge a society’s mindset as the cause for lack of growth is a sign of bankruptcy. And when such charges are made by politicians, it causes greater concern; after all as people’s representatives they are called up to understand, listen, educate, accompany, elicit and transcend the mindset of the people by adapting to the realities of their lives and creating methodologies of governance that best responds to the basic needs of the people.
In the context of community based indigenous societies, the relationship the indigenous people have with their ancestral land is innate. The organic relationship between indigenous people and their land is neither fully comprehended nor respected by the modern State; largely because it is in the nature of the State to control and monopolize all realms of life, in particular, the question of land and territory. When unable to control it, the state often retorts by marginalizing the people. In the absence of any substantial understanding or agreement between indigenous people and the State, it is the tendency of the powers that be both within the State system as well as within the corporate circles to shift the responsibility on indigenous people.
In the guise of globalization, States and corporates often put undue pressure on indigenous people by coaxing them to change their mindset and to conform to the culture of modern capitalism. However, failure to negotiate over land and resources between State, Corporates and Indigenous peoples is mainly caused due to faulty negotiating processes and over the perception of what is fair compensation. Simply put, the failure is caused by differing world views. State and Corporate agencies have the tendency to approach negotiations from a very self-centered bureaucratic standpoint in which power is often used as leverage to secure its own interests; while indigenous people derive negotiating processes from a cultural perspective where dialogue and negotiations is intimately intertwined with dignity and well being of all.
The second is related with how the idea of monetary compensation is understood. While State and Corporate agencies look at monetary compensation based on established value of land and resources within a specific time, indigenous people tend to approach it from the point of generations – for instance, the value of how seven generations could have benefited. This naturally leads to breakdown of negotiations and brings to the forefront how different worldviews and paradigms are used differently by different entities. Therefore at the heart of land issues concerning indigenous people and their relation with the State, unless the underpinning worldviews and cultural ethos are well understood and respected, it is unlikely that any agreement can be reached.
Coming to the Naga context, the question of land and resources needs a comprehensive approach just to even identify and understand the core issues involved and to fully understand and appreciate the nature of relationship between people and State. It would therefore be erroneous to presume that a change in mindset is the way towards resolving this issue. The issue of land and resources must be approached contextually. In the meantime, the Naga mindset must be encouraged to naturally evolve with each passing generation. Considering that the mindset of a society is both the cause and effect of a given context, Naga men and women in positions of power would be in the best position to lead by example in transcending their present mindset and bringing forth a consciousness that would empower Naga worldview to work and mature to its ultimate capacity.
