The last day of the Monsoon Session of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly saw a lively debate on issues ranging across the board, from discussion on mismanagement of funds, corruption in different institutions to passing of important bills and some political resolutions. But one that stood out was obviously the contentious topic of law and order situation prevailing in Nagaland. The Chief Minister staunchly defended his government’s position that the matter was under control. The Opposition Congress obviously thought otherwise and decided to stage a walk out not satisfied with both the Home Minister, Thenucho and Chief minister Neiphiu Rio who were frantically putting across the point of view that the law and order situation in the State had been brought under control since the DAN had taken over the reigns of the State Government.
Having made their point however, there was something amiss in the explanation given by the Chief Minister. While taking umbrage under the argument that Nagaland’s problem is unique and political the Chief Minister nonetheless did admit that killings and armed clashes occasionally take place in the State. As far as the security of its citizens is concerned no government can argue about ifs and buts. Whether it is a socio-economic problem or one which is political in nature, there can be no two opinions as far as lawlessness or disorder taking place in a State is concerned. Violence or killings perpetuated by an armed underground cadre or a social misfit or an anti-social element cannot be differentiated or condoned whatever the specious argument given. To do so would be to set an unhealthy precedent of discriminating on the very nature of lawlessness. Imagine a scenario where future governments condoning the lawless action of one or the other faction. Would future generation of Nagas blame such a phenomenon on the legacy of the so called equi-closeness/distant policy? While it could be argued that in spite of the appeals from the Government and Civil Societies certain elements refuse to desist from self destructive acts. Yet the point is whether the State authorities have control over such situation. This would mean taking strong measures including the right to enforce punishment on those found guilty.
There is also a truism in what the Opposition Congress today criticizes about, regarding the State Administration remaining a silent spectator to wanton disruption of peace, taking place across the State. The government is the agency through which the will of the citizens of a State should be formulated, expressed and realized. It is well understood that the most important duty of a government is the maintenance of law and order. In the modern conception of the State, law exists to control the animal instinct in man, who at times can be very aggressive in the absence of law and its strict enforcement. Any government worth its salt must demonstrate the ability to take suitable action against those who violate the terms of the law of the land. All disturbances must be quelled in order to remove the fear psychosis from the minds of the general public. This requires outmost transparency and sincerity on the part of the State government to act and not merely play to the gallery.
