The power of information has been at the helm of human affairs since the dawn of human kind. Consequently, the holder of any vital information has acquired and entrusted with much power and is in a position to make critical and decisive interventions that can alter decision-making. With the evolution of the modern state, it ensured that the state was the sole custodian and holder of information in the name of security. Having the monopoly over information, the state system has exercised great power over people and influenced their opinions and actions and has persuaded their decision making abilities. Such is the power of information; and more so the holder of information, which is the state. The citizen’s demand for transparency and accountability from the state has therefore been central to the realization of democracy.
In recent times, the state’s monopoly over information has been strongly challenged due to progress in technology and more so with the revolution of the internet. The internet perhaps poses the greatest threat to the state system’s control over information; and states are therefore seeking to assume control over the internet. Today, all most all information is available in the internet. This has revolutionized people’s thinking and the state no longer enjoys the same kind of power and control over its citizens. This however is not the case in all scenarios; as citizens that are under military authorities do not enjoy such access. This is also true for situations that are not yet strong democracies.
Today in Nagaland, a history of protracted armed conflict, a situation that is highly militarized and alive with corruption, the question of information is vital; and more so the holder of information will play a decisive role. Ideally, it is the people who should be the holder of the information; and yet in places like Nagaland, people are starved for real authentic information. This has given rise to rumors and propaganda; and hence the ordinary citizen is often disempowered to make meaningful and informed decisions that affect their lives. The lack of opportunities and access to quality information and statistics has only encouraged rampant corruption and a culture of impunity. Hence any attempt and effort to uncover information and to bring them to public attention in the Naga context is met by fierce criticism.
Considering that the print media is the one of the only organized means of mass communication in the Naga context, its responsibility to uncover and present information vital to public interest is fundamental. This however becomes challenging when genuine information is not readily and easily accessible. But the greatest hindrance is the growing habit to shoot the messenger. The inability to differentiate between information and the messenger has unintended consequences and may be detrimental to the democratization of information in Nagaland. For the whole truth, nothing but the truth, it will take some years before the Naga psyche can open itself for a democratic discourse on information. Nagas need to objectively rationalize truth, only then can we utilize the power of information.
