Do Naga leaders have the courage and wisdom to embrace this maxim: “To rule by obeying”
Language is central to how people define the world around them as a means of communication and as a carrier of an evolving culture. It expresses a peoples’ experiences throughout human history which becomes their collective memory. The role of language helps understand why containing and controlling it, together with the formation of a people’s collective memory, was vital to successful colonization projects. History has shown that the domination of a people’s language by supplanting them with the ‘languages’ of the colonizers are crucial to the “domination of the mental universe” of the people being subjugated. Clearly, language was pivotal to designing structures of oppression, subjugation and domination.
Conversely, language is simultaneously a means of liberation. The true nature of language can weave a global web of aspirations while simultaneously resisting and rejecting the language of domination. Language becomes liberative when it empowers people to freely and democratically determine their own destinies and choose their own way. The language of liberation is inclusive and egalitarian, it does not dominate or oppress. Rather people at the grassroots are catalyzed to create alternative structures of human interaction. This dynamic praxis provides the recognition and space for the people to strengthen and rearticulate their peoplehood.
The Zapatistas in Mexico, who are rooted in indigenous culture, consciously forged an alternative understanding of political governance or organizing based on humility and their shared sense of collective responsibility within which they acknowledge that ‘nobody is an expert in politics and we all have to learn.’ For instance, the indigenous movement was premised on the maxim – mandar obedeciendo – “to rule by obeying.” The National Indigenous Congress describes the guiding principle of this power as: “To serve, not be served; to represent, not supplant; to build, not destroy; to propose, not impose; to convince, not defeat; to come down, not climb.”
The concept is based on humility not subservience and equality and mutuality which are not hierarchical. The principle of “to rule by obeying” is the foundation for an alternative form of organizational structure that will be decentralized, horizontal, rotating, collective, inclusive, flexible, representative, plural, gender-equal and non-partisan. Hence, in this way, “to rule by obeying” redefines the relationship between governing and ethics.
Indigenous understanding of power critiques the Western notion of power as a centralized, specialized and privileged sphere that is formally related to the State. On the other hand, the indigenous worldview of power emphasizes the need to decentralize ways of governing and organizing, and to spread, or share power. “To rule by obeying” implies a profound process of redefining and reconstructing power in both its content and application. The indigenous praxis of power is not a political project to ‘homogenize or hegemonize;’ rather to strengthen and affirm the web of interdependency. In essence, the indigenous concept of power “to rule by obeying” is a critique that suggests transcending the State’s hegemonic top-down system. It opposes and challenges both elected Governments and Revolutionary movements that seek to reproduce the structures of domination notwithstanding their different names or forms.
In the present Naga culture weighed down with power over, materialism and VIPs, the challenge for Nagas as indigenous peoples is to humbly and critically examine and consider how “to rule by obeying” in language, concept and action applies to our context.
Perhaps, this is the direction Nagas need to further explore in cultivating a new culture that will enable a shared future.
