For whatever reasons, the Right to Information campaign in Nagaland has remained muted and the movement itself has been slow to start off with. One of the reasons for this could be the general lethargy among the public and their lack of interest to pursue the tool made available to actually expose corruption of the system. Unlike the rest of the country where the RTI Act has created a stir of sorts, Naga people seem to be more concerned about issues of peace and reconciliation, problems related to HIV/AIDS, economic development and unemployment issues. As much as this is understandable, it is at the same time unfortunate that society itself seems unprepared or mature enough to speak about transparency in administration and political dealings. So even if there are NGOs who are tirelessly trying to educate people about open government and empowerment of the masses, the general attitude of people remaining rooted in its past therefore does not appear to be receptive or encouraging the idea of an open society and government.
While from a rational-legal standpoint there could be nothing better than having a tool such as the RTI to humanize the system, for a traditional close knit society such as the one prevailing among the Nagas, the question of encouraging openness and democratic practices based on constitutionally laid down fundamental rights of an individual does not have much of a scope to flourish. Experience from working in the media shows that for a family or a tribe or a village, the question of defending something as grave as corruption or even murder does not arise or simply put, it is a non-issue. The only thing that matters is protecting a member howsoever corrupt the person may be. This is the reality that still exists and even for the local media, its right to freely express and write remains muted for this very reason i.e. silencing the truth. For this reason, self-imposed censorship is the thumb rule rather than an exception, which is not a good thing. But for a society that speaks the language of honor and group solidarity it is the most sensible thing for the media to do, i.e. get out of harms way.
It is therefore also important to note that for right to information to become meaningful, it will also depend on how far separation of the judiciary from the executive is effected because when it comes to the question of delivering justice, customary laws or courts may not yield positive outcomes. Traditional law is unwritten and un-precise, and tends to emphasize the position of the community rather than the rights of the individual. While it may strengthen group solidarity it also makes compromises or in other words legitimizes a wrong doing. How RTI will survive in such a setting will make for an interesting study.
It is disconcerting to note that the one day workshop in partnership with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative mainly prepared the administrative heads, heads of departments and other public authorities to enable them to meet their obligations under the newly enacted Act. Similar workshops for the public have not been forthcoming. It has been only some concerned NGOs or academic forums, which has taken some initiative. When citizens are properly enlightened about the legislation only then will they realize the immense utility envisaged in the Act. But the government does not appear too keen to allow this to happen. More preparatory workshops for public consumption are therefore the need of the hour. The public will have to be better informed about the concept and tools of this revolutionary act. In the long run, old mindsets based on ethnocentrisms will need to be transformed giving way to the imbibing of rational thinking and secular ideas that values democratic norms of fairness and justice.
