Nukhosa Chüzho
Kohima
“The world is changing”, remarked one of the resource persons in a collegiate camp in 2007. It took nine years for this writer to arrive at a concordance with the statement. While equally agreeing that change, by law of nature, is inevitable and moderately beyond the control of human limited intelligence, the degree of change exerted against a particular time and the value it has occasioned either positively or negatively to a society is worth contemplated. Of all the conspiracy theories offered by various esteem authors and speakers in relation to the current tussle, one is but without substance of one’s own framework as the truth is implicitly concealed or our shadowed visions deter us so. The public are unjustifiably deprived of their rights to have an insight on the issues that shall bear ramifications in case of their uninformed decision. Nobody knows for sure that any changes effecting against the present status quo, which bids fair to accrue its instant turnover to the present generation, would have detrimental upshot to be handed down to the coming generation (as was the case with the Shillong Accord). Such dearth of established visions and supported solutions left a room for public to doubt the credentials of those who are at the helm of affairs.
The question, therefore, is to undertake a case study of our current state of affairs which itself reluctantly entangled in socio-political dilemma. With the incumbent political dispensation and the forceful women organisation lassoed together to ensure an environment presumably viable for the conduct of a “development-oriented” elections to the Urban Local Bodies, the tribal bodies, on the other extreme, tied up with the civil societies in an attempt to fend our walls from an “imposed” invasion into our sacred identity. Consequently, the politics of development and the movement for identity have assumed a diametrically antithetical stance with the parties involved had, out of the blue, brought our state to a near standstill.
The deeper analysis of the imbroglio drive us to a clearer image of our view where modernity gets clashed with our identity, and where we fails to reconcile tradition with modernity in our progressive journey towards a shared but uncertain future. Today, our representative administration demands us of our liberal perspectives which, if we were to shape ourselves to fit into it, requires certain amount of sacrifices on our part: be it political identity, social structures or cultural limitations. But, when we momentarily or permanently overlooked our rich traditions in our accelerated effort to develop our state into a superficial superstructure, on what premise would we set our foundation when we exhausted the monetary proceeds we received at the cost of our identity?
Here, we may remind ourselves of the past episodes where the terms of agreement of the historic 9 Points were unilaterally consigned as non-existent; the introduction of the principle of election in Naga society which significantly is elite based by successfully parting with our system of selection which is purely based on merit; the deconstruction of the substantial 16 Points by transferring Nagaland from External Affairs to Home and effecting amendment in, and interpretation of, constitutional provisions including 23rd Amendment and conflict of interest between the GON and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. All these are incidentally connected to the very core ideal of our identity where the basic right to self-determination and the principle of ownership over our own self is questioned and threatened.
Without analysing our own actions about the possible nemesis of our downfall, we have reserved a reactive approach deep inside by blaming the outsiders for our own creations. The current situation where we are presented with very less options to reach an understanding is our own creation. It is conspicuously clear that we now have the techniques to destroy the hard earned peace on which we rest, but have not yet developed the ability to escape from the mess we have hedged. Would it not be much wiser on our part to explore avenues that would rather guarantee a stable future than by seeking to realign a fragile social fabric, if at all we wanted to be really modern in taste and scientific in experiment?
Britain had in June 2016 voted to exit from the economic and political bloc much to the chagrin of the elite nations within the grouping arguing that a nation’s independence and identity is far more admired than progress under a chained situational arrangement. So also, the rise of Donald Trump in the United States has shocked the established system not only in America but throughout the world. Trump generally represented the voice of the often neglected community and a miniscule call for exclusivist but well-guarded approach. Both Brexit and Trump symbolised an exigency to protect a nation from invasive globalisation/liberalism and in both the cases, the voters did reject the appeals of the elites for development.
This underlines the supremacy of the people and the power of a united stance that can bring about the impossible within the realms of possibility. If the world’s most industrialised nations realised that they need to go back to where they had laid their foundations, must we not also re-examine the decisions that we have made which we categorically believed is the solution to our poorly developed cities and towns. In spite of being fully developed and industrialised, the above cited two countries still hung in suspense without sure of what awaits their future which is manifested in the turns of events we witnessed.
Recalibrating elections to the ULBs with arrangement on mutual understanding does not mean misogynistic. Both the parties would rather feel satisfied to first concur then take the first step where both the genders can participate not with a “weakened” reservation but with full participation. The Nagas, perhaps, had never imagined then that by roping in the election system to our society would have played such havocs induced by might and riches for which we all are now indulged in blame game. Then, should we continue to justify our past historical conundrums as our steppingstone to commit further political blunder? The status of being “special” in an Indian Union has been gradually phasing out post Planning Commission era. Time is ripe for us to weigh the pros and cons of our policies and programs lest we succumb to the carrot and stick tactics that may embed itself in 73rd and 74th Amendments, clandestinely designed so as to deconstruct the last of our strongholds. We can choose from available options but we cannot choose the consequence that necessarily comes along.
The movement by the civil societies to reach an understanding with the authority represents the desires of the people. Without unity, even if we have money, development might take place only at a personal level thereby quickening the ever widening rich-poor gap while proving contrary and antagonistic to an expected result. Circumstantially, the situation might take a wrong turn as cruel competition between the elites and the neglected lots would render our aged-old values to a mere code of the past. This will further catapult our identity crisis. Article 371 A is exclusively for us to override such malwares that may infect and affect our system. “The world keeps changing” and it is a license for us to devise a novel municipal administration with its functionaries proportionately represented by both the genders sans elections where our right of ownership, our hunt for recognition and our security of identity are well protected. We want liberty, we want belongingness, and most of all, we cry for identity.
