Witoubou Newmai
The letter of RN Ravi, the Governor of Nagaland State who is also the Government of India’s Interlocutor for the Naga peace talks, to Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio has kicked up immense ruckuses. Even as the letter continues to attract strong reactions, supports, debates and difficulties, somewhere in a faint corner there is something to say—inappropriate jargons and times of one’s ‘missed’ choosing can invite skewed discourses for further confusion. This is not to revile anyone or the society, but rather, for the sole purpose to contribute.
The letter of the Governor is ambiguous when he mentions that “over half a dozen organized armed gangs, brazenly running their respective so called governments challenging the legitimacy of the State Government without any resistance from the State law and order machinery has created a crisis of confidence in the system.”
There are several aspects even to this above-quoted sentence, not to mention of the whole letter. As such is the case here, employing hyperboles and sweeping statements will only dilute the situation into a mere pursuant of further complications.
This editorial will not go much into the letter and the reactions which follow. Rather, this writer chooses to deviate a bit from the ‘letter issue’ to incline towards one overarching aspect that may help all sides and parties in future.
An impulse driven nice-sounding political commentary/statement or an articulate political reply or reaction is not always a smart idea to open eyes to reality. In fact, what it takes to help navigate through the perils of the labyrinthine situations is considered smart, while the rest merits for a blithe dismissal as ad nauseam.
Given the peculiarities of the situations pertaining to the Nagas, and as experiences have nudged us, we need to see the subtle distinction between thrust-parry indulgence and what is considered ‘smart’. Failure to do so all along has also been one of the reasons for both the Government of India and the Nagas to make things stuck to where they are today.
Even as the debate about the RN Ravi's letter lingers, we need to put things in perspective. The Governor may think he is taking care of his responsibilities while, on the other hand, the other side feels the former is up to something else. In such a situation, it appears that it has many things to do with two different worldviews. If that is so, the question of who is imposing whose worldview on whom may arise.
When two persons with two different worldviews say one thing, they may be actually saying two different things for the obvious reason that they are seeing anything from different standpoints. As the atmosphere of one standpoint is also different from the other, neglecting this subtle distinction will create a relational hiatus.
One trend that has been a recurring companion of the Naga peace talks is that, every time the people expect and hope the situation to be filled with improving stories, the potent capacities which appear to be latent, rear their elements. Such a trend has frittered away the better part of the opportunity for all.
The point here is, both the Nagas and the Government of India, who are supposed to be partners in ‘détente,’ must see that they have responsibilities, and that, their responsibilities are not abdicated. This writer had also reminded earlier that the ‘method,’ which challenges the spirit of dialogue, must be excluded from all future engagements so that for what the reason the Nagas and the Government of India have endured for, is achieved.
