Al Ngullie
(In this third edition of the continuing perspective on youth and politics, I wish to delve into the nuances that define the minds of the three strata of Naga youth. The edition is more a sparing rationalization rather than an explained finality.)
Naga youths vis-à-vis politics, may be best understood if we explore the various – and diverse – socio-economic environments they are part of. Or the environments they were nurtured by. The motivation behind their retraction from politics or involvement can be explained not necessarily in the way they think but in how they consider the political State as a sovereign, self-preserving entity of governance and government. Ultimately, the ‘why’ will throw up the answer to the reason most (in fact almost pervasive) progressive Naga youths won’t usually engage in active politics.
This is not to say that youths who are engaged in the activity are at all not progressive; similarly this also does not at all subscribe to the progressive ones being decidedly apolitical. This is a contextualization of the general perspective I deem proper to present for debate.
In Nagaland, youth activism in political, welfare affairs is neither pro-legalist nor collectivist. They are political-minded yet apolitical and vice versa. This means activism is motivated only by pressure and not necessarily urgency or weight of matter or even need: They don’t usually react promptly to injustices, whether political or social. They would ‘do something’ only when they ‘are pushed too far’ or ‘cannot bear it anymore.’ We all are aware of the recent instances of public upheavals where youths and students took to the front.
Being political-minded yet definitely apolitical defines Naga youths’ activism to some extent. Yet again, in matter of politics and welfare, the two paradoxes define their being collectivists. While seemingly random and insecure, this aspect encompasses and generally defines the three strata of youth in Nagaland:
(a) The educated, intellectual, cultured youth
(b) The “educated” (academically) yet insular, bucolic youth and
(c) The “watchers,” who are neither proactive nor reactive; they comprise generally of both the educated as well as uneducated unemployed sections, from both urban and rural areas.
The first lot – as mentioned earlier – encompasses the professionals and the “nut-tweakers,” engaged in various contemporary, specialized vocations. They are basically careerists, but by virtue of practical exposure to societal and anthropological academics, they are basically the more intellectual section of the other two strata. In comparison, the first lot is by and large urban-nurtured and constitutes only a small portion of the entire youth community. They comprise the higher cream of education, societal trade and business service; the sensible and dialogue-driven motivators; they are the service-providers, damage-controllers, the managerial workforce, entrepreneurs and networking initiators which the society depends on to exist as a modern people.
The second stratum – considerably educated, academically yet provincial youths – are generally engaged in pursuance of socio-political objectives under the aegis of welfare organizations and are not technically, speaking, professionals. While considerably educated, in academic terms, they oftentimes most prefer to engage in unstable, experimental and often objectionable methods to realize even socially-acceptable objectives. Many student/youth-based organizations in the state today are led by ‘leaders’ who fit in this stratum. In other words they are a more defensive community. In a lighter vein, most are what is generally known in local parlance as “bostimanus” (not villagers per se!) or “mannerless” types.
Both are a thinking community. But they function in totally apposite yet opposite ways: The first are more inclined toward communication-based resolutions (read dialogue, change-processes, and mutual-reciprocation). The second lot is given more to practical, tactical means to exact an objective. However, a word of caution is deemed fit here in regard to the term “practical.” The term “practical” should not be construed as being sensible or constructive. (Many Naga youth and student-based organizations today have regressed to being mere political vehicles driven by tribal whims. More than the noble motivation of welfare, it is an undeclared truth that many of them are culpable for expediting and deepening tribal antagonism now. Egoistic tribal fervor never witnessed a likened precedent as seen in the recent two years till date.)
The contrast of each of the two sections functioning in apposite yet opposite ways, is where the definition of youth involvement finds a challenge – the challenge to define an explicit concept of their involvement itself.
In reference to the Naga lot, the glitch is this: socially-conversant (read progressive) youths are given more to devising welfare-based services, say, like business enterprises or charity/welfare-based organizations. On the other hand, the second stratum of youths are most expected to opt for state systems as a means to ‘doing something for the society;
Today there exist subtle yet undeniably overt demonstrations of two strata of the Naga youth intelligentsia: The professional youths who are basically careerists, but by virtue of practical exposure to societal and anthropological academics, they are basically the more intellectual section of the other two strata.
The other is a highly qualified community driven by collectivist objectives yet their action is inextricably guided by the liberal exigencies of provincial considerations – two of the most conspicuous of these considerations, is cultural pressure and regional politics.
The perspective will continue in later editions
