Witoubou Newmai
The Naga political issue needs to be resolved by adopting how genuine issues are resolved, and not by glossing over its nuances from the burden of impatience and circumstances.
It is to mean that the state as well as the Nagas cannot afford to ignore the fact that the Naga political issue requires a solemn ‘conclave’. Here, we need to note that solemness requires participants who suit the ambience. In other words, the ambience requires participants who understand the issue.
Again, the attempt at resolution also requires that the corpus of the Naga political issue is presented well to explore its abiding significance. Or else, the participants of the ‘conclave’, from the Nagas as well as the state, will be only disqualifying themselves. This infers that unless one is qualified enough to engage the issue, false opportunities and the reckless abandon of them, would blend the issue for the ridiculous returns.
Is this situation already here?
This question is asked because there have been indications for quite sometime now that there are people who are wobbling to see the wide distinction between what is a bonus and what is a solution.
Bonus is an addition whereas solution to a problem means making justice prevail for all parties.
The ‘bonus’ question crops up even as employment of a term such as ‘pragmatism’ or a phrase like ‘contemporary realities’ have become the fashion of the day. Some quarters employ such jargon to escape from the truth while many others may be doing it due to various unexplained factors--genuine or otherwise. But harping on 'contemporary realities' or 'pragmatism' should not mean to ignore the truth.
On this plane, some questions also come up asking whether it is possible to employ ‘contemporary realities’ and ‘pragmatism’ without ignoring the truth? Or, whether the employment of 'pragmatism' and 'contemporary realities' has the capacity to accommodate the principle and the worldview of the Naga political issue which is at the heart of the whole gamut?
That is why here comes the issue of bonus. Since bonus is an addition, one does not experience the ‘feeling of loss’ even if the person does not get it. However, for someone who is led by the principle of the issue, unless justice to the problem is made to prevail, nothing will make up the loss.
It goes without saying that bonus has to follow solution or solution has to precede bonus, if at all the issue of bonus prevails. So, if someone offers a bonus without a solution or if anyone takes a bonus sans solution, then the trend will explain the obvious. We need to check whether the employment of 'pragmatism' or 'contemporary realities' has capacities to alter the universal notion of bonus (in our context).
More importantly, one should be mindful that circumstances of a given time are also often designed so that one withdraws the sense of the need of the issue at that given point of time. Unmindful of such designs can prompt us to employ jargon which suits the given moment. A rather obvious parallel would be anything else but to resolve the circumstances of the day and the organizations. However, such an affair only takes the emphasis of truth and justice away from the whole exercise. In fact, such an indulgence blends the whole issue into a mere pursuit of gain and convenience.
There is no denying that the binary of ‘possibilities’ and ‘difficulties’ has been dictating the trajectory of the Naga political issue. Dilating too much of ‘possibilities’ and perceiving and labeling ‘difficulties’ as ‘eternal impossibilities’ before giving required efforts can qualify most of us to be ‘unqualified participants’.
Dialogue does not mean coming together to discuss the obvious consensus. The need for dialogue crops up because differences need to be turned into consensus.
This editorial advocates against the ‘wrap-the-burning-charcoal-solution’ or the ostrich's security syndrome of ‘bury-head-in-sand’, so that the problem stops haunting plebeians and high authorities for all time to come.
