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 mindsets they are part of. Or the psychological environments they were nurtured by.
The motivation behind their retraction from politics or involvement can be explained not necessarily in the why their perception is so. Rather, 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 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 more reactive than proactive; they comprise generally both the educated as well as uneducated unemployed sections, from both urban and rural areas. This section shares similarity of thought with the “educated” stratum (see preceding subhead) of Naga youths.
The first of the lot?
The first lot – as mentioned earlier – generally encompasses educated 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 network-initiators which the society depends on to exist as a modern people.
In reference to the Nagas, 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. (Comparatively, 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, are cultural pressure and regional politics.
Involuntarily confused
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.) Many welfare-significant and repercussive proactions find origin in this section.)
This section is highly vulnerable to political exploitation. We are aware of the events and changes taking place, as being highlighted in the local print media.
The contrast of each of these two mentioned 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.
The third wing
This section is generally the most socially-disadvantaged, yet politically active mass of the lot. They comprise mostly of uneducated unemployed youth, from both urban and rural areas. This section also includes a good number of educated youths engaged at the forefront of youth and student movements (read unions, political youth wings).
Welfare-significant and repercussive upheavals find origin in this section as well. The reason is, they are living instances of disadvantaged welfare policies of the government in concern – academically qualified but lacking vocational, technical merit; able and willing but redundant; capable but a-waste. These disadvantages often find expression in upheavals motivated by the drive for fulfillment of welfare objectives – job opportunities, better educational system and competent honest administration, for examples. On the flipside, they are also the most used, and exploited section. Policy-makers, political parties etc engaged these youths’ sentiments (and interests) to further political objectives. Occupational disadvantages also force many of them into engaging in extremist political movements by way of securing economic survival.
They are a willing people ever desiring a recreated, progressive society where a shot at opportunity is explanative of social wellbeing and prosperity. Unfortunately, many a dust and dirt, disease and ‘law and disorder’ in the society, also can be traced to this section.
(This perspective will continue in convenient editions later on)
Readers can continue interacting with the writer at alngullie@yahoo.com or alngullie on Yahoo messenger.
