When leaders of all grounds- underground, middle ground and upper ground, are frantically running up and down to draw some kind of solution to the pressing issues, which may directly reflect on the existing demography and topography of the State, should the ‘non ground’- but conscientious people remain silent at this hour? Silence, at time implies tacit acceptance, or callousness or fear and the prevailing silence of the common people maybe one or more of this. Whichever it is, none of these will serve our common objective in real meaning now or later, if at all we are serious about securing every body’s interest. For too long we have remained silent, even on imperative issues for questionable reason; we have also been silenced not on our own volition. Whatever be the reason silence may, more likely will cause irrecoverable damage, unless we boldly speak out now or we are allowed to speak out our real minds now; and now maybe the right time. There is no point crying over the spilt milk.
Dissenting opinion, on the contrary is not tolerated. It is more often than not misconstrued an offense committed against the people and the movement. Even so, intolerance has proved to become more harmful than helpful to the transitional society. The other side of intolerance is plain arrogance. While assenting opinion is being commanded, dissenting opinion is being suppressed. Apparently for fear of intolerance from arrogant forces on the one side and rejection by people in power on the other side many otherwise conscientious men and women are living a pretentious life- the unwillingness to blindly accept the becoming but the unwillingness to also question. Scaling between the two, the consequences of silence maybe much more severe and lasting than that of immediate intolerance or rejection.
When people’s future is in the balance they must freely talk with seriousness and they must be given the liberty to react to the becoming without imposing attitude from anybody. What is becoming will definitely affect the people at large, whether for better or for worse and we all are going to be a part of that, perhaps for life time. This is where and when we also want even our distant voice to be heard by those who are claiming to be rightfully representing the people. The factions claim they have the mandate of the people while the State claims it is the people’s representative government and that the civil societies represent the voice of the people. As far as people’s mandate is concerned it is true that at certain point of time they had willingly given their mandate to the undivided movement for sovereignty; it is also true that state government is popularly elected by the people under the constitutional provision of the Indian Constitution and that civil societies are people’s group.
If this is so and undisputed, where is the necessity for the represented people to inquire more from the representing groups? There is no reason to question the factions if they are really negotiating for the thing the people has willfully given their mandate. But now there is inevitable curiosity to ponder why the negotiating faction is secretly bargaining for something else not pre-disclosed to the people for positive consideration before it is finally conceded by the GOI. Certainly for those who had sacrificed they should be duly rewarded but it should be worthy of the real cause. Given this circumstances what is even quietly agreed upon by the negotiating parties should be of people’s aspiration or largely acceptable. Else when people are apparently involved but not actually informed, it no less resembles a blindfolded person escorted to undisclosed destination.
There are mind boggling talks going round every nook and corner about possible formation of an interim government at the instance of the negotiated and allied factions for certain period. When the facilitating ruling NPF leadership has readily offered to step down from power and pave the way for the negotiating faction in the event of reaching a settlement, this automatically would mean that the negotiated and allied factions would be running such interim government, directly or indirectly. Legally and technically no justifiable basis is found for such arrangement. However, if this is exactly what the people desire, so be it, although State Government is not elected by the people to end in interim as also Naga politics is never meant to end this way.
Next, although it is categorically made clear by the GOI that there will be no territorial readjustment of the neighboring states, there maybe possibility of territorial reallocation within Nagaland exclusively for certain section of groups, specifically in or around Peren and Dimapur districts or a portion of it as part of the negotiated settlement.
This also takes us to the overt issue and yet covert dealing of the ENPO demands for statehood. Overt in the sense that there is no hidden agenda in the demand of the aggrieved people but covert in the sense that the ruling NPF leadership has first carelessly bungled the sensitive issue and secondly took for granted that it (NPF) could lullaby the restive community. Amidst this perplexity the civil societies and responsible citizens have preferred to remain silent all throughout. Perhaps they are too entangled with the uncertainty of the becoming they have too little to say about the certainty of the ENPO problem. As a conscientious citizen I do not disagree with the genuine grievances expressed by the ENPO but I do not agree that the eastern Nagas should walk away from us because of the, otherwise attainable grievances. To me they are more precious people than those who can not possibly become a part of our given setting. When we cannot have the desired more why reduce what we have in hand?
We all are anxiously anticipating that something is coming soon out of the ostensibly concluding talk, perhaps a ‘no-other-better-option’ for the negotiated faction and much to the relief of the exasperated GOI. Consequently, there will be mammoth rehabilitation in habitation, employment, economic packages and other security measures with possible enhancement of Article 371(A) special provisions. But Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland states most likely will remain as they are, although as stated earlier the possibility of territorial reallocation within the status quo cannot be ruled out. The critical point is, apart from unprecedented non-political benefit what unique political arrangement can the anxious people expect from the 14 years negotiation?
Precisely, when the people are being consulted but not made known of the contents, the precipitate choice whether to accept or not the becoming will remain a subject matter of great suspense to the people till the settlement/agreement is finally declared. People, obviously will react thereafter but by then will it be too late?
Vaprümu Demo, Kohima
Dissenting opinion, on the contrary is not tolerated. It is more often than not misconstrued an offense committed against the people and the movement. Even so, intolerance has proved to become more harmful than helpful to the transitional society. The other side of intolerance is plain arrogance. While assenting opinion is being commanded, dissenting opinion is being suppressed. Apparently for fear of intolerance from arrogant forces on the one side and rejection by people in power on the other side many otherwise conscientious men and women are living a pretentious life- the unwillingness to blindly accept the becoming but the unwillingness to also question. Scaling between the two, the consequences of silence maybe much more severe and lasting than that of immediate intolerance or rejection.
When people’s future is in the balance they must freely talk with seriousness and they must be given the liberty to react to the becoming without imposing attitude from anybody. What is becoming will definitely affect the people at large, whether for better or for worse and we all are going to be a part of that, perhaps for life time. This is where and when we also want even our distant voice to be heard by those who are claiming to be rightfully representing the people. The factions claim they have the mandate of the people while the State claims it is the people’s representative government and that the civil societies represent the voice of the people. As far as people’s mandate is concerned it is true that at certain point of time they had willingly given their mandate to the undivided movement for sovereignty; it is also true that state government is popularly elected by the people under the constitutional provision of the Indian Constitution and that civil societies are people’s group.
If this is so and undisputed, where is the necessity for the represented people to inquire more from the representing groups? There is no reason to question the factions if they are really negotiating for the thing the people has willfully given their mandate. But now there is inevitable curiosity to ponder why the negotiating faction is secretly bargaining for something else not pre-disclosed to the people for positive consideration before it is finally conceded by the GOI. Certainly for those who had sacrificed they should be duly rewarded but it should be worthy of the real cause. Given this circumstances what is even quietly agreed upon by the negotiating parties should be of people’s aspiration or largely acceptable. Else when people are apparently involved but not actually informed, it no less resembles a blindfolded person escorted to undisclosed destination.
There are mind boggling talks going round every nook and corner about possible formation of an interim government at the instance of the negotiated and allied factions for certain period. When the facilitating ruling NPF leadership has readily offered to step down from power and pave the way for the negotiating faction in the event of reaching a settlement, this automatically would mean that the negotiated and allied factions would be running such interim government, directly or indirectly. Legally and technically no justifiable basis is found for such arrangement. However, if this is exactly what the people desire, so be it, although State Government is not elected by the people to end in interim as also Naga politics is never meant to end this way.
Next, although it is categorically made clear by the GOI that there will be no territorial readjustment of the neighboring states, there maybe possibility of territorial reallocation within Nagaland exclusively for certain section of groups, specifically in or around Peren and Dimapur districts or a portion of it as part of the negotiated settlement.
This also takes us to the overt issue and yet covert dealing of the ENPO demands for statehood. Overt in the sense that there is no hidden agenda in the demand of the aggrieved people but covert in the sense that the ruling NPF leadership has first carelessly bungled the sensitive issue and secondly took for granted that it (NPF) could lullaby the restive community. Amidst this perplexity the civil societies and responsible citizens have preferred to remain silent all throughout. Perhaps they are too entangled with the uncertainty of the becoming they have too little to say about the certainty of the ENPO problem. As a conscientious citizen I do not disagree with the genuine grievances expressed by the ENPO but I do not agree that the eastern Nagas should walk away from us because of the, otherwise attainable grievances. To me they are more precious people than those who can not possibly become a part of our given setting. When we cannot have the desired more why reduce what we have in hand?
We all are anxiously anticipating that something is coming soon out of the ostensibly concluding talk, perhaps a ‘no-other-better-option’ for the negotiated faction and much to the relief of the exasperated GOI. Consequently, there will be mammoth rehabilitation in habitation, employment, economic packages and other security measures with possible enhancement of Article 371(A) special provisions. But Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland states most likely will remain as they are, although as stated earlier the possibility of territorial reallocation within the status quo cannot be ruled out. The critical point is, apart from unprecedented non-political benefit what unique political arrangement can the anxious people expect from the 14 years negotiation?
Precisely, when the people are being consulted but not made known of the contents, the precipitate choice whether to accept or not the becoming will remain a subject matter of great suspense to the people till the settlement/agreement is finally declared. People, obviously will react thereafter but by then will it be too late?
Vaprümu Demo, Kohima
