By T. Y. Tikhir | EMN
The concerned citizens of Nagaland have initiated moves in various spheres to take on our decaying erroneous and this should not divest away come next year. The literate and educated are taking on political front to secure progress while the Samaritans are taking on practical front for social change. Those working on practical fronts include ACUAT, PSAN, PCC etc. and even few apex tribal Hohos, who strive tirelessly holding rallies, facing chill water cannons, and the recent staging of hunger strikes – so that we the public could avail our legal rights. This people drawing sweats need our support, if not financially then physically; if not then thoughtfully. Today as the whole of Nagas envisage a future of common cause and interest, our vision include but is not limited to repairing roads, housing better public facilities, constructing damaged bridge etc. but beyond. The present politics being discussed is definitely not esoteric and the literate and the educated should be responsible to interpret it to the genuine people. What remain is, how are the people discussing and updating.
In an ethical discussion when the merit points are not contested the remark is not valid. In public discussion, the speaker are legally and uncontested points cannot be overridden. There are critics and then there are motivated opinions binding. Critics are those that stick on the subject-matter and give logical feedback, whereas the latter… well, they are motivated opinion as it usually revolve around personal attacks and does not delve to regard the subjects that are being discussed. It is also requisite in public discussion to restrain from personal attacks as it is illegal and ethically wrong. The public speakers speak on behalf of the public, and politics or such matters have nothing to do with personal lives, interest or flaws; unless there are scams or legal allegations, which could be publicized with regard to the case.
Defamation is legally binding to both the party and has many forms. In current Nagaland politics, sneaks are sometimes necessitated to straighten or rectify illogic or most diligently to make point on sensitive areas to ensue stability and peace. However though, the sneaks do not envelop biased and personal attack; as, if it is meant to decipher, it sure could be debunked and produced; and when the questions comes, there are reason for legitimate sneaks; but for the latter, what could it be then to hold accountability and comply. Which is why, public speaker or every citizen for that matter are expected or rather required to speak the mind honestly in public platforms. It is also a fact that there never was a regulations of etiquette in our platform, hence we can refresh and make amends; without perpetuating, under the careful observations of the entire mass.
Amidst the confusion, if we chisel the edges in the way we publicly share and express our thoughts and opinions or confront, there would not be confusion at all bit a constructive and progressive discussion. The literates should also should enmesh for fair revision in engagement, in setting up an example for interaction for the generation that is to follow. It is our responsibility to develop a sensible platform for healthy discussion to deliberate on real issues. As humans we are prone to bio chemical reactions that manifest our emotion into love, happiness, anguish and anger, but our thoughts should be controlled by us to not be prejudiced or insolent based on natural conditions and environment. The writers reflect the steady transformation of Nagaland and of some, the judgment should be polished as well – in the sense to fight and not on personal level.
Lastly, on the issue of election, it would not be responsible on our part to allow vote buying; and certainly not to refund the investment from the state’s treasury – it is only giving free pass to corruption. A third place moral obligation should not be allowed to hamper development and paralyze our system for more years. It would be a moral, sensible and intellectual failure on our part to readily endorse or allow vote buying. It would not just be morally wrong but also legally. For instance, when the South Koreans first practically initiated clean election, it was decided collectively to impose 50 times the amount fine to any candidates who bought votes. The only way to save Nagaland would be but accepting the ground realities and confronting the problems with our collective wisdom and common insight. And if correction is to be dark; good riddance light.
