Sani Athisü
The recently published monograph, Literary Cultures of India’s Northeast: Naga Writings in English by Dr. Veio Pou (Heritage Publishing House, Dimapur, Jan. 2016), Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (University of Delhi), can be described as creative writings at its best because of its rootedness in and attention to sociopolitical and cultural settings. Similarly, another recently published monograph, Evangelizing the Nation: Religion and the Formation of Naga Political Identity by Dr. John Thomas (Rutledge, Nov. 2016), Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, is extremely timely and quite revealing and beneficial for those of us who are engaged both academically and socially at the intersection of religion and politics. Interestingly, both of these works are updated versions of the two authors’ doctoral dissertations, which were submitted to India’s premier institution, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. My reason for linking together these two insightful works in this brief report owes to their chosen perspectives – reading history from the underside. That is, each puts forth a counter-hegemonic voice that attempts to read history from the perspective of the subjugated and the oppressed as opposed to the dominant’s claim to some universal objective truth, where everything is rationalized and justified on the same basis. Likewise, with this intentional commitment the authors attempt to give voice to the stories of the peripheral broken people like the Nagas who have been crushed and trampled within the colonial and postcolonial political arrangements. And yet, not surprisingly, not all Nagas share this lens of reading their history. We have witnessed representatives from a powerful coterie of Naga elites who opt for the opposite reading of Naga history in which they place themselves as the saviors of the so-called “unruly” “savage” Nagas. Opposed to this, my contention is that a choice to side with the broken ones, as noted above, is an intentional, courageous commitment, which might even invite the wrath of those in power.
And yet, burdened with such concerns and commitment, Dr. Pou problematizes the postcolonial nation-state of India’s mode of “managing” the peoples from the peripheral regions through the production of knowledge about the “other.” The motif has been used to justify the militarization of the “frontier” for the last six decades and more. This is where additional questions are raised as to how and why the postcolonial nation-state of India became even more brutal and more oppressive than the colonial (Britain) master in the administration of the “frontier” region. Here, Pou seems to entertain the idea that Postcolonial India unwittingly has fallen into a trap of mimicking its former colonial master in the subjugations of the said region. Nonetheless, I do not think that Pou intended to concede any sense of such policies as a result of unintended circumstances. On the contrary, Pou is well informed of the sources and the context of the enactments of such specifically, intentionally crafted military laws that target particular people group/s. Such policies are likely located in the worldview of the ruling power/s that operate with a particular lens that views the “frontier” as both included and yet excluded at the same time in their imagination of postcolonial India. Underlying this sense of “part of” and yet “not part of” is where I think the primary culprit hides – again, the value systems of the dominant which renders the powerful unable and unwilling to accept the “frontier” peoples as equal conversation partners. To further this position, I recommend Papori Bora’s work, The Nation and its Margins: Reading Gender and the Politics of Sovereignty in India’s Northeast (University of Minnesota). This work not only unveils some of the underlying hegemonic cultural nuances in operation but also to help one to understand how the nation-state employs legal maneuvering as a means to put extrajudicial powers in the hands of the law enforcement agencies to contain the “differentness” of the “other” by prescribing a region a so-called “disturbed area,” with impunity.
As critical as he is of the nation-state’s policies toward the marginalized, Pou is today equally troubled by the Naga political conundrum of factionalism. This is where he raises his voice the loudest alongside some of the powerful published works of Naga women whose voices are often silenced by the powers from within (and without), afraid that voices of dissent are not in the best interest in the larger scheme of Naga nationalism. Despite being misconstrued, the bodies of critical writings from Naga women today play the crucial role of critical self examination in the imagining of future Naga Peoplehood. As Pou intends to argue, with the women authors he has been in conversation with, unless the Naga leadership (at all levels) listens to the critical social commentaries (voices that are often times muffled) and brings about corrective measures to Naga cultural and political norms and practices, the promise of a future will remain a farce.
Tasked with similar concerns is Dr. John Thomas whom I suspect might have crossed paths with members of the Journey of Conscience that Naga people undertook some years back to reach out to the Indian civil society leadership. Even if he did not, Thomas did have several Naga colleagues (and more) as conversation partners as he undertook his chosen doctoral project. And for the extra efforts Thomas had to commit to are greatly appreciated, working as he did as a non-Naga in trying to understand the complexities of an ongoing unresolved political history of another people, meanwhile trying to be fair in producing this bold and revealing history of the Naga people. As noted, Thomas’ work is articulated within the intersection of religion and politics with the primary focus of understanding how both of these dimensions are appropriated in the articulations of the Naga political identity that have caught the interests and the imaginations of so many. In so doing, Thomas also clarified and corrected some of the major misconceptions, or perhaps, a deliberate misconstruing with ulterior motives, from certain quarters at times, about Christian religion as the perpetrator behind Naga political aspirations as a secessionist movement. What Thomas clarified about Naga Christianity is that faith does intersect with Naga political identity, but the political aspiration comes from who they are as a people, being shaped and influenced by particular geopolitical and historical circumstances of life.
Besides the debunking of the regular conspiratorial rhetoric of the dominant narratives that scapegoat Christian religion as the “misguiding” force behind the assertions for identity and rights by Naga people and others in the “peripheral” regions, Thomas’ reading of Naga Christian religion is quite revealing. Accordingly, in Thomas’ analysis the predominant Christian religion amongst Naga people turned out to be a religion that actually stays aloof of the historical experiences of the people. Thomas here alludes to the absence of any fitting critical theopolitical response to the historical sufferings of the people even as the Naga church leadership continues to call for “peace” in the region. Similarly, Thomas is very critical of past Naga church leadership, especially the Naga Peace Council, whom he accuses of sometimes working as conduits for state agencies, who were either left with no choice or due to a lack of theological imaginative power.
It is true that the predominant Naga theological worldview is a conservative one that usually will attempt to escape from addressing the material state of broken human conditions (especially those that are political in nature) by opting for the abstract eternal soul, claiming this is the primary responsibility of the church. Finding such disconnection between the predominant faith and the historical/political sufferings of the Nagas suspicious, Thomas also launched a critical and helpful review of the Naga theological heritage passed down from the pioneer missionaries (especially those with a New England background) in the context of imperial expansion. Thomas did acknowledge that his critique of the Naga theological worldview comes from being influenced by “Liberation Theology.” Interestingly, this revelation might raise some eyebrows in a context where any theological perspective that raises the political question (read responsibility) of the theological is usually dismissed as “worldly” and “unspiritual.” While this entrenched ideological divide is a battle to be fought another day, what is crucial about Thomas’ critique is the question of theological efficacy. That is, Naga theological articulations should effect real change in the historical context of the people, or otherwise, such theology will remain a farcical theology and will only end up reinforcing the established moral status quo.
Sani Athisü, currently on study leave from Oriental Theological Seminary, Bade, Dimapur, is a junior instructor in Political Theology and Social Ethics. The reviewer may be also reached at sathismao@gmail.com
