Dr. Asangba Tzüdir
Often referred to as the third sector, civil society being different from the state implies a ground for people to realise the interests and welfare of the community. Drawing attention to the role of civil society as a non-state actor, an important aspect lies in it being a body of resistance. In political parlance, civil society has often been seen as an arena of resistance. As forces of resistance, civil society becomes a part of a strategy to create models through which it can intervene on issues of governance by creating ways through which the people experience a shift from being ‘governed’ and ‘controlled’ to a state of being ‘governed-less’ but ‘governed-better.’ More pressing are the issues of identity.
Coming to the status of civil societies in Nagaland, the marked failure of a sustained ‘voice of dissent’ on pressing issues of welfare and facets of identity highlights the absence of a strong and dynamic civil society in Nagaland as a body of resistance, and thereby raises the question of its objectivity and existence. Civil society posits themselves in a space between the state and the citizens or peoples, and in a scenario where certain sections are enriched by those agents in power, it only propagates the silencing of the voice of dissent. In a society where it responds to its own interests pushed by individual gains, it can only legitimate the unprecedented power of those who ‘govern’ and thereby control. It cannot also act as a resisting force so long as it is part of the ‘system’ to those who ‘govern’ and control.
Having said this, again, there are constraints within which civil societies come into play. Structurally, its operation as a ‘body of resistance’ calls for a democratic space. In no way can it function freely in any space that is contrary to the ideals of democracy which is further crippled by the general apathetic attitude of the masses. Whatever the constraints, the articulation of a language of responsible dissent is paramount to the credibility and meaningful presence of a civil society as an agent of resistance. Further, Naga civil societies suffer from the lack of proper understanding of the issues at hand. For this, the issues first need to be deliberated within a broader spectrum of thought in order to synthesise divergent perspectives. For now, there are too many perspectives.
Within the pressing realities, Naga civil societies form an integral voice and on a positive note; they have contributed towards the creation of greater awareness which have led to increased debates on issues confronting Naga society. To sustain and to progress, it needs to break free from the shackles of ‘self-enclosed narrow dividing lines’ and come together with a common cause for the liberation of the society so also provide clear direction on issues that need a way forward. Only then a civil society can play the role both as a facilitator and a regulator.
The role of civil society as change agents, as civic organisations, as organisations based on identity, as promoters of democracy and more importantly as a resisting force must come alive to the impending realities that concern integrity and the larger question of identity as a people.
(Dr. Asangba Tzüdir contributes a weekly guest editorial to The Morung Express. Comments can be mailed to asangtz@gmail.com)
