Al Ngullie
For urbane (not urban) Naga youths, a tendency to be revolted by politics and politicians alike is a mutual standpoint. For this section of modern, careerist Naga advents – the professionals and nut-tweakers – all that politics deserve is a guarded cognizance and most naturally, an unabashed cynicism for everything that says “politics.” Perhaps a rise in welfare-consciousness impacted by economic movements in third-world countries is to blame; or the exceedingly unsavory and opportunist nature of politics itself is responsible for planting cynicism in this more socially-conscious urbane generation?
For senior citizens who still linger in the indiscriminate conviction that ‘no good can even come out of a modern youth,’ allow me a reminder here that being “modern” (read urbane, progressive) can never be interpreted in terms of exigency (change-processes which time impact or demand). In my understanding, to be urbane (read cultured) is to be socially-conscious. ‘Urbane’ denotes a state of higher awareness; of being cultured et al. And in the context of professional youths, who read, participate in society’s demand and keep updated on the myriad changes impacting societies, they are more conversant than the average senior citizen. And that is being honest, to say the least.
Social-consciousness and welfare-consciousness
Admitted, youths, by virtue of nature, are a whimsical generation. More given to the hedonistic and perhaps, the self-destructive, they remain a focus for society’s concern. However, let us also be in reminder that if we analyze general youth behaviors, we realize they are not so much a source of nuisance themselves as much as the fact that this ‘nuisance’ is a product of exigent environments. This means society itself is no less culpable for planting cynicism in the youth.
Possibly, it is these realities compelling a youth to think and act the way he does. Or react. Naturally, he is nurtured into assuming a more deliberate mind where his values conform with proactive moralist attitudes rather than to the legalist interventionist nature of politics.
Allow me this reminder: Strictly, to be urbane is to be modern, sophisticated, refined, and polished and yes, progressive in every possible sense. It is just a learned psychological inclination not an acquired nature. To be socially-conscious is to be perceptive to the change-processes that communal existence impact in myriad ways. An even more proactive dimension of social-consciousness is being welfare-conscious. This is to be sensitive and wiling to make a stand where either right or wrong is concerned. In other words, it is a higher dimension of practical welfare intervention. This entails proactive action.
On the central point, we can confidently say that for the younger lot, politics is more a nuisance, a necessary evil they – like other more perceptive individuals – have to endure: Because politics doesn’t fulfill the criteria to be a proactive welfare motivator. So we can opine urbane youths are welfare-oriented (Read change, career, utopia, societal co-existence) while politics is of opportunism and expediency.
Welfare-consciousness and Government
One could wonder, ‘How can one claim to be socially-conscious when he is far put from politics, which itself is a regulating system within the society itself? Still, another may query, ‘isn’t the government a vehicle for impacting and building welfare?’ Admitted, both questions are exceptionally relevant considering government and state, people and community are an interlinked entity, each nurtured by the other.
The truth is that, a society’s good welfare or its neglect is dependent on whether or not the government in concern is ‘good.’ So this answers the question that politics is more a detriment to society’s health if the government in concern is “bad” and vice versa. A progressive society can also boast of good influence from a “good” government. But their relationship is only quasi-mutual (‘quasi’ – seemingly). This means that while government is part of the society, the latter is not part of the former. The simple reason is that society is driven by welfare while government is, I repeat here, convenience. In other words, urbane youths are, thankfully, more inclined towards the health of the former. That explains to some extent, the difference between societal-consciousness and welfare-consciousness as far as urban youths’ proximity to politics is concerned
Generally, urban Naga youths do not believe politicians are the best people to bring to reality the utopian dream called “better tomorrow.” In fact, politicians have turned the dream into a nightmare. Do you believe in saviors? The young lot in question doesn’t. In fact, they think they are the ones.
In the context of Nagaland, youth perspective has yet to translate into effective action in the realm of welfare and its allied dimensions. Admitted, that youth perspective in socio-political affairs in third-world societies like Nagaland is far put from, say, that of the west. Youths from the western countries are more assertive and socially perceptive. Further, they hold a sense of social accountability where thought and action is basically an obligation so far as personal initiative is concerned.
The bummer
But the society has a point in denouncing youths as mere parasites; that they are more smoke and no fire. But society has a monumentally valid point in their cynicism of youth perspective and youth “movements.” Unlike the youth of the west, or even mainland Indian youths, Naga youths are still learning to be independent and assertive when matters come to decision and action pertaining to society. They find courage in popular movement of thought rather than “speak out” without waiting for, say, a Hoho or a union to make the first move.
But this does not at all mean that Naga youths are undiscerning to the random change-processes which political parties, politicians and party activists impact. And the impact political parties and their workers are making on the minds of the urbane youths is unfortunately, exceedingly unhealthy. For the thinking youths, and I don’t mean exclusively our student/youth organizations, politics are an excuse for the more influential to prostitute popular welfare aspirations for personal interests.
Their deliberate tolerance to expeditious politics can be attributed only to the fact that anarchy would murder the society. The repercussions and impact on next history is unimaginable, if the urban lot demonstrates ‘intolerance.’ This intolerance would be by way of totally denouncing the political system and “live my own way, in my own ivory tower.” This is ironic because being welfare-minded they are certainly expected to fulfill – through proactive action – egalitarian and value-based (democratic) aspiration of the society. So the “tolerance” also means “we have no time for politics.” And this can be blamed on political entities and their behavior in devising socio-political policies over years and time.
Readers over the years have shared me their frustration at politics, in general. This is also reflective of the frustration in the very system they exist in. And these youths/students express their discontentment in the language only they know: The ones represented only by a line of asterisks or representative symbols. Nevertheless, the central motivation behind their frustration at policy-makers and political developments is plainly understood. In simple language: “Nagaland government stinks!” And they are not ranting about some NPF-led Dan governments or the Congress regimes.
We shall delve deeper into this topic in later editions. You are very welcome to challenge and share me your perspective.
Readers can continue interacting with the writer at alngullie@yahoo.com or alngullie on Yahoo messenger.
