Nukhosa Chüzho
Dear Silverstein,
I have read your article contending that my article captioned “Fide non Armis” had suffered from certain anomalies by offering alternative views and effecting changes on subject matter regarding the said article to render it more accurate, thereby coaxing it within permissible limit of law and its applicability. First of all, I extent my personal gratitude for the corrections that you gently offered which proved enlightening as I am just a new entrant in public space to put into words as to how I feel for my people, and what best is applicable to my people in resolving issues within our own value and understanding. Secondly, as I have been engaged with some training, I could not afford to reply you on time and for which I beg your patience. And thirdly, I held some of your contentions contravening the spirit of the above article at the personal level as much as my contentions were subject to redefinition at your personal level.
Having equipped with “the causes of the French Revolution, … the analogy is not a good one”, an excerpt from your article titled “VIOLENCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT: REVOLUTIONARIES OR MOBS” to mean that drawing French Revolution as a warning signal to the leaders of Nagaland is not a good one. Merely for purpose of citing an event as a hint to authority to take due care, and to remind our people of the past events as precautions, the causes and the courses of the event so mentioned need not be identical nor is it obligatory for its genesis. Neither do I compare the recent impasse in our state to that of historic French Revolution. I did postulate that leaders are morally bound to read the situation and apply reason to pre-empt any imminent movements, revolutions or wars where French Revolution served as best example for government-people conflict (for we have symptoms capable of transforming into fully matured disaffection, discontentment, and ultimate civil unrest to achieve a target by hook or by crook).
While you have stated that it “is not by faith that the government functions”, here I would like to reassert that it is by faith that the government functions. Withdrawal of confidence and withholding of faith by the people to its government would certainly render an established system crippled and the same was manifested by holding government to ransom for straight 20 days. Here, theory varies with practical and we may be reminded that what you and I theorised may not absolutely be applicable empirically. Functioning of government machineries consequently came to a grinding halt. People’s participation, therefore, forms the backbone of the government as long as government is for the people. And, if government functions only for a few sections of a society, such government’s credibility is questionable and its stability, or most of all, its survival is at threat.
You allegedly assumed me of trying “to address both a revolutionary situation and one that was not so, and he (I) could not make up his mind which view of things applied to the present situation”. I may be kindly allowed to clarify that I did not even try to address the situation that is comparable with a revolution nor had applied to the present situation as I just sequenced how the situation got unfolded and how we should govern ourselves in future to arrest such confronting issues that have a tendency to “liquidate” our own existence, by stating that past societies have had so much indications and lessons for us to have a reference. Contrastingly, I also did not try to project the recent crisis as a revolution nor a near civil war and thus define the situation identifiable with either of them. However, it emphasised the causes of the crisis as early signals which need leaders’ principled stance to avoid obnoxious government-people confrontation, and when unchecked, it could end up in any of the above discussed situations which nobody could predict.
Drawing to the conclusion of my clarification, may I also take this privilege to acknowledge your realistic contributions towards envisioning our society in a more presentable format. I have been following your contributed articles and rejoinders in our dailies and most of your articles are simply superb. In acknowledgement to your positive critique, I humbly look forward to learn more from you. And, instead of taking up much spaces for public in our dailies, I offer you my email ID – khozch@gmail.com – as an alternative through which we can communicate. Signing off with thanksgiving.
