A constructive dialogue is the need of the hour
Moa Jamir
The ongoing sparring – with accusation and counter accusation- between a Naga political group (NPG) and an anti-corruption/taxation Watchdog is ill-fated and portentous for future.
It started as a conflict over the instances of multiple taxations but has suddenly turned into a full-fledged sparring over questions of legitimacy and mandates of both the organizations.
While the former accused the other of trying to “divide and kill the Naga movement,” the latter said that the factionalism was the main culprit.
Again, the NPG accused the Watchdog of “extreme provocation” for “mobilizing the Naga public” to reject its “absolute sovereign rights to impose and collect taxation” while the latter said the NPG should consider it “an ally” and “safety-valve.”
The Watchdog, without understanding the dynamics, is creating a “nuisance,” said the NPG. However, the Watchdog retorted that their concerns, for unabated taxation, and the division and factionalism within the Naga movement having nightmarish consequences on the poor general people, is not a nuisance.
One claims “absolute sovereign rights” to collect taxes, whilst the other people’s mandate on “One Government One Tax.”
Beyond the realms of print media, the current imbroglio is creating a dangerous trend in social media clearly antagonizing the users into two warring groups potentially having grave implication for the future.
Regardless of their assertions, one thing is clear from such discussions. The legitimacy and mandates of both the entities are not absolute and irrevocable. It is issue-based.
The arguments of both parties are valid, but the parameter of operation is contentious.
While the NPG should listen to the angst of the people, especially the youth, whose allegiance is not unconditional but issue-based, the Watchdog should also keep the same in mind.
They need to take into account that the youth, while having the penchant for displaying cynicism, are also conscientious, and inquisitive and should not be taken for granted.
Can it impose its rule by force? Yes or no. But it will never bring about the lasting and peaceful solution it passionately tries to advocate.
Considering any opposition or criticism as being in connivance with the Indian government is also self-defeating. Conspiracy theories, valid or otherwise, do not hold water, as one can also argue that any ‘agreement’ with the GoI itself is questionable.
A big vacuum and apprehension also exist with the NPG keeping the so-called ‘Framework Agreement’ a close guarded secret, instigating speculative conjectures which are often detrimental to the process. This lack of transparency is further antagonizing many sections of the people.
There is a need to address these complex issues by putting contemporary reasoning based on ground realities rather than taking recourse to historical precedence over mandates or legitimacy.
No organization can engender either unqualified blind faith or claim ultimate legitimacy. For that, even an MLA has a mandate. Thus, instead of rhetoric, a constructive dialogue holistically examining the validity of both the assertions is pertinent at this juncture. It must focus in arriving at a consensus solution rather than adamantly justifying untenable positions.
Far from being a casual observer, the mass-based organisations and religious entities can act as a catalyst for bringing out a consensus and bring the matter to an amicable solution. Else the issue could snowball into a huge crisis having disastrous ramifications.
The onus is not on the Indian Government to unite the NPGs into one entity but lies with concerned NPGs and the Naga people.
Are they willing to listen to the voice of the people?
For any comment, drop a line to moajamir@live.com
