Bureaucracy, borders discussed at White Owl Literature Festi
Bureaucracy, borders discussed at White Owl Literature Festival
Alemtemshi Jamir, former chief secretary of Nagaland, stated that the inefficiency of bureaucracy today can be traced back to historical factors at White Owl Literature Festival and Book Fair at Zone Niathu By the Park in Chümoukedima
Panel discussion on bureaucracy in progress at the White Owl
Literature Festival and Book Fair at Zone Niathu By the Park in Chümoukedima on
Tuesday.
DIMAPUR — On the second day of the ongoing
White Owl Literature Festival and Book Fair at Zone Niathu By the Park in
Chümoukedima, while sharing his thoughts on the topic "Navigating
bureaucracy: governance and challenges in the northeast," Alemtemshi
Jamir, former chief secretary of Nagaland, stated that the inefficiency of
bureaucracy today can be traced back to historical factors.
He mentioned that before British rule, the Nagas lived under
small tribal institutions without centralised administration, while the British
introduced an alien bureaucratic system driven by colonial and mercantile
interests, keeping the Nagas largely isolated.
He added that after World War II, the British made some
efforts to uplift the region but left the Nagas to independent India. India
then introduced parliamentary democracy, but insurgency in Nagaland created
further complications.
Ad hocism was born in Nagaland, and many people were
appointed on the spot, provided they had passed class six, simply to prevent
them from joining the underground. Apart from ad hoc appointments, there were
also contract appointments. He mentioned that at one point in time, there were
around 17,000 work-charge employments in Nagaland, and these were made without
rules or regulations.
Stating that bureaucracy need not necessarily come under the
shadow of politicians, he added that bureaucracy will always exist but must
evolve to remain effective, whether under illegitimate politicians or wealthy
elites.
The deputy secretary in the Personnel and Administrative
Reforms department, Livitoli Sukhalu, said that they inherited a British
bureaucratic system that evolved in a different context from their needs.
Sukhalu mentioned that one of the biggest challenges in Nagaland’s governance
is that, while the government exists as an institution, it has yet to be fully
institutionalised.
The commissioner and secretary of the Urban Development and
Municipal Affairs Department, Kekhrievor Kevichusa, mentioned that some of the
points where bureaucracy might be failing are the division of labour and the
hierarchy within the bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, in the first session of day two of the festival,
while sharing his thoughts on the topic "Frontiers, corridors and
connectivity: a conversation on writing about the Indo-Myanmar
borderland," Sanjoy Hazarika, a researcher and columnist, stated that one
reason for the lack of connectivity between Myanmar and the northeast might be
the absence of a long-term policy from the Indian government towards Myanmar,
with the approach so far being largely ad hoc.
Hazarika added that the positions towards the Myanmar border
region have been defined by two factors: one is the situation within the
Northeast in terms of security concerns of the government of India, and the second
is considering China as an adversary.
Regarding his viewpoints on the lack of literature in
general and also in academic writing about the Indo-Myanmar borderland, he
mentioned that one needs access to the area, and without that access, one can't
really write a well-informed article, essay, or book.
Patricia Mukhim, the editor of Shillong Times, highlighted
the irony behind the border fencing of the Indo-Bangladesh border in Meghalaya,
pointing out that while there is BSF fencing in certain areas, it abruptly ends
at a particular point. Beyond that, the rest of the border remains open, with
people living on either side separated only by a river. Locals from both sides
often fish in the same rivers, blurring the lines between the two nations.
Mukhim emphasised that she often tells people from the
so-called mainland that the Northeast region shares only 1% of its borders with
India, while the remaining 99% borders foreign countries. She questioned why
the country doesn't give this region the attention it deserves.
Mukhim pointed out that India tends to view one neighbouring
country as an adversary, rather than seeking common ground. She raised concerns
about how India will handle China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific and
emphasised that too much focus on internal issues has neglected external
matters. She also expressed disappointment in India's failed diplomacy with
Myanmar.
Mmhonlumo Kikon, a poet and former two-term legislator from
Nagaland, highlighted the demarcations of the Indo-Myanmar border. He discussed
policies like the Free Movement Regime and the Sixth Schedule, which reflect
colonial legacies, aiming to integrate the northeast into India. He also
addressed security concerns and the growing influence of China in the
geopolitical landscape, which is affecting India’s strategy in the region.
Dr. Samuel G Ngaihte, an interdisciplinary scholar from
northeast India, shared that one challenge in writing about this region is the
lack of appropriate language and terminology.
He maintained that the concept of "border" is
problematic for those living in the Indo-Myanmar borderlands, who have long
contested this idea—first with the British and now with post-colonial
nation-states.
