There are now no two opinions that the Naga way of life has much to offer in terms of providing the answers to many of the dilemma that the people in the State of Nagaland are today being confronted with. Whatever is the issue in whichever field it may be—social, economic or political—one would have to now seriously think about going back to some of the traditional knowledge and practices and finding application for them particularly in the broad area of governance and decision making.
To take forth just one example, even the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner’s Court Kohima and Gauhati High Court could not resolve the issue as far as the two-decade old confrontation arising out of the usage of— Kedima and Kidima for the villagers. While there is definitely a case for reforming customary laws in tune with modern principles, one would have to agree on the remark made by Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio during his historic visit to Kidima that Naga customary law was the best law as far as dispute settlement is concerned. Instead of continuing their expensive litigation under the modern judicial system, finally, the matter was handed over to the Tenyimi Central Union (TCU) in February 2005 and as a result TCU managed to sort the differences after seven months of deliberation with the village elders. As such Kidima is an appropriate ‘peace model’ that can likewise be applied to resolve similar disputes such as the one in Tobu between the Konyak and Chang communities.
Another success story worth mentioning that has fallen back on the traditional knowledge base is the institution of Village Development Boards (VDBs) which has proved to be a successful innovation to harness the social capital of people in rural areas. Former Nagaland Chief Secretary A.M Gokhale largely credited as the brainchild of developing the VDB model drew on the premise that the strength of Nagaland was to be located in the villages. Working on this strength, the VDB has now grown as a model institution that is being replicated in other part of the region. VDB, by allowing governance to take shape at the grass-root level, promises to bring about the all-round social empowerment for rural Nagaland.
It goes without saying that the State Government machinery should have as its agenda, the high priority of reestablishing that vital link with the people and also use the tremendous power latent in traditional knowledge to meet its development goals. It will be in the fitness of things for policy makers to turn their attention in tapping the traditional ‘technologies’ or assets of people themselves rather than depending merely on the systems and programs. It is important to once again emphasize that governance must be developed within the context of Naga society. Due consideration must be given to traditions in order to allow the Naga people to identify with their government. As is the case with communitization and village development boards, other positive elements of the political heritage of the Naga people should be adopted in order to form and sustain a governing model unique to the Nagas.
