Time and time again, we hear Naga men and women in positions of power and influence emphasizing the need for changing the Naga mindset and ways of thinking, all the while asserting that it is the best way forward. This assertion is ironic, a contradiction at best, as it reveals the colonial dilemma between tradition and modernity, particularly in the context of so called ‘tribal’ societies. To identify a society’s mindset as the cause for lack of progress is a sign of bankruptcy.
When such charges are made by people in positions of influence, it causes greater concern. After all, as the people’s representatives, public leaders are called up to understand, listen, educate, accompany, elicit and address the people’s needs by adapting the realities of their lives and creating methodologies of governance that best responds to the people’s basic needs. All too often the leaders’ charges and declarations are patronizing as they remain separate without genuinely engaging the people in processes to examine this mindset. This is a form of elitism by the educated that are seemingly dismissive of the grassroots’ hidden potential to bring about broad sweeping social change born of an evolving mindset.
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 not fully comprehended, accepted, or respected by the modern State. This negation is largely because it is in the State’s nature to control and monopolize all realms of its citizen’s lives, in particular land and territory. When unable to control it, the State often reacts by marginalizing the people. In the absence of any substantial understanding or agreement between indigenous people and the State, the tendency of the powers that be, both within the State system, as well as within the corporate circles, is to shift the responsibility on to indigenous people and communities.
Under the guise of globalization, States and multi-national corporations often put undue pressure on indigenous people by coercing them to change their mindset, and to conform to the culture of modern capitalism. However, failure to negotiate over land and resources between State, Corporations and Indigenous peoples is mainly due to faulty negotiating processes, and over the misguided perception of what is fair compensation.
Simply put, the failure is caused by differing worldviews. State and Corporate agencies have the tendency to approach negotiations from a very self-centered, self-serving bureaucratic standpoint in which power is often used as leverage to secure its own interests. Indigenous people derive negotiating processes from a cultural perspective where dialogue and negotiations is intimately intertwined with everyone’s dignity and well-being.
The second is related to understanding the idea of monetary compensation. While State and Corporate agencies look at monetary compensation based on an established value of land and resources within a specific time, whereas indigenous people tend to approach it from the vantage 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.
The question of land and resources in the Naga context needs a holistic and comprehensive approach. This is so critical in order to clearly identify and understand the core issues involved, which includes an in depth analysis of the nature of relationship between people and the State. With this in mind, presuming that a change in mindset is the way towards resolving this issue would be erroneous. The issue of land and resources has to be approached contextually.
In the meantime, the Naga mindset can be encouraged to naturally evolve with each passing generation. Considering that the society’s mindset includes both the cause and effect of a given historical context, Naga men and women in positions of power and influence 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 of a shared humanity.
