After a good hiatus of silence on many an issue in the recent past in the state, the Rio government finally emerged to make a comment come August 15. The “comment,” if of any significance, is a matter of concern not for its weight but the very implication of state assertion. Courtesy of Independence Day, Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio as usual highlighted the now-expected “whole-round development” pronouncement, with the assurance that DAN continues to keep its pre-poll commitments. Considering many an issue that had burnt holes into the image of the DAN in the recent past, Rio was expected to make pronouncements explicit to the unsettling socio-political affairs that the state had been undergoing.
Some of the few instances that the DAN government failed to strongly assert its presence when it was needed the most, include the JEE “family quota issue,” the still-festering NPSC bribery issue, the reported deployment of the 10th IR Naga Battalion to J&K, the Itangki National Park controversy, the tenacious matter of the ONGC/Canoro’s oil explorations in Champang and most glaringly, the law and order situation in the state. More recent instances are the Assam-Nagaland border issue and yes, the regular media highlights of corruption in the government/departments. Addressing communal issues also remain a responsibility inadvertently entrusted on local peoples’ authorities.
The DAN government may be credited with being development-oriented governance but for the commoners, welfare-redress continues to be a sore spot. The last several months had witnessed an increase in factional killings in various districts of Nagaland; police personnel, particularly the IRB, had taken to meting out vigilant action on civilians; vehement and regular highlights of corruption in the government mechanisms continue (a recent instance if corruption alleged in the SSA/education department); the recent reported demand of “statehood” by certain sections of the state; the state government was expected to come out with specific, firm and decided pronouncements when all these few instances cropped up.
Media observers are confident in the observation that owing to ‘sensitivity’ of many of the above-stated issues, the state government remained in tension not to make any “comments.” It may be mentioned that policy-makers in concern had refused to make any pronouncements when contacted over several matters on several occasions – including the recent factional clashes in the state, the peace initiative of the joint forum of GB/DBs, Canoro Resources Ltd’s oil explorations, the reported “statehood” issue and whether or not the government would take any step in regard to the Assam-Nagaland border case.
While few comments of no consequence have been made by ministers in local programmes and functions, Media observers and civil analysts feel that the DAN government could have done more in addressing the welfare and public-security issues of the people. Or at least come out with assertive opinions. The trend is, under the pretext of (most of the above stated issues being) “sensitive,” policy makers in concern were found wanting – excepting the tenacity of a few local reporters in exacting comments from the government over certain ‘stories,’ as appeared in the media. It may be observed that ‘sensitivity’ of an issue does not at all entail the right to remain silent. It also does not mean any pronouncement should be made, either. However, an entity entrusted with the mandate of a democratic people is naturally the guardian whose voice counts even if it is of insignificant implication.
Interestingly, the Opposition and detractors of the DAN have also remained confined only to issues of security or law and order. The irony is that while the government remains ‘sensitive’ to issues of law and order, the opposition has also limited its analysis and criticism to it. While “breakdown of law and order” is the major tone in almost every Opposition attack, very few, analytical criticism have been made in the areas of unemployment, HIV/AIDS, state-funding on certain schemes in Nagaland, factional issues etc. The denotation here is not that reaction should be demonstrated for every issue of event but that it is imperative for opinions to be highlighted to generate debate and analysis.
There have been expressions of “weak Opposition” and “sensitive government” in Nagaland in recent times. Perhaps this is an indication of both a government and Opposition in urgent need of reinventing their motivation to encourage accountability to the people. And their mandate. While shallow, expected criticism only damage democratic exchange, constructive, substantiated ‘feedback’ from the Opposition would motivate a government to wipe its glass for a better view of the state of affairs. It is indisputable that both the government and the opposition should widen their horizon of action and perspective to pave a two-way welfare road for the people. This can be translated into good only when retiring, submissive and reflexive ‘sensitivity’ is replaced by pro-active ‘sensitivity’ by both the sides.
