Vaprümu Demo
[dropcap]I [/dropcap]do not know how the American way of driving right is right and left is wrong and reversely the Indian way of driving left is right and right is wrong. But I do know why either way the driving rule is enforced for the safety of both the driver and the driven on the road and until such time you swing to the wrong lane you and the others are safe or right, come whatever. Taking cue from this simile, the Indian driving rule is reinterpreted to relate to the losing socio-political ground where wrong is made right and right is made wrong by calculated choice, not circumstances. The inherent dichotomy between right and wrong or virtue and vice is almost consensually reconciled for convenience, not compulsion, for an impossible co-existence of two otherwise extreme opposite. Particularly to a Christian in a society as it is to a driver on the wheel, the safety of taking the right path/lane or the consequence of taking the wrong path/lane is not inexplicable.The phrase “lhü mve” in Chokri Chakhesang, the English translation of which is “living left”, depicts an uncanny person who believes that left is right and right is wrong. When the thing of “lhü mve” in an individual is magnified and glorified to that of socio-political level, the problem is naturally enlarged. Where there is uncertain situation self-regarding becomes more demanding than sacrifice because sacrifice becomes meaningless. Where materialistic situation prevail unregulated competition, uncontrolled consumerism and undeserved comfort dominate. What matter least is conscience- the inner sense of right and wrong or conviction- the sense of good and evil. Even person of seemingly high morality or moral authority calculatingly turn to the left and then made it right only for reason of immediate threat or treat. Therefore, he, who believes and lives by his conscience or conviction, becomes either a fool or a liability in the eyes of the society. And he, who believes and lives by his basic instinct of survival and success, becomes either a hero or an asset in the eyes of the society. In between these two extremes there is nobody. We all belong to the class of either the first few or the second most. The decision to be so is made by us, not imposed on us.
The concept of right or wrong even in a small circle can be interpreted differently according to one’s choice and convenience so what is opined by one can be treated as insignificant individual opinion. Even then individual opinion, no matter how remote or dissenting it may appear from a prevailing impression deserves proper hearing if it is on important subject matter because ultimately it will be the people who will judge what, if not who, is right or wrong. Let me infer with few instances.
Whether it is right or wrong to demand Naga sovereignty from India it is definitely right for the people to support their struggle and it is equally wrong for those who go against their own struggle. It is then wrong for some people to accept statehood under the union of India because at certain point of time it amounted to compromise of the struggle although statehood given with special provisions under Art.371(A) remains the best option (next to that of J&K) ever given to the Indian states. On the contrary it is right for those who support statehood to contest the elections conducted by the ECI and it is wrong for those who oppose statehood and constitution to contest or patronize the same election. How paradoxical and self contradicting it is then for the regional party and supporters which habitually accuse national party namely Congress as pro-Indian, anti-Naga, to contest every Indian election (to be noted) with a national record-breaking polled percentage every Assembly and MP Election since DAN formed government in 2003 and today, ally with such national party as BJP which professed ‘Hindutva’ and ‘zero tolerance’ on insurgency and anti nationalism? High time the ruling party comes out with a white paper to clarify which is then the right and which is the wrong national party for the Naga people-in-struggle. One is tempted to conclude that regional party is consistently fooling the Nagas and the latter is foolishly gullible.
When the negotiating groups have tacitly admitted that sovereignty in the changed world order is not practical they seemingly have mellowed down to integration within India although we still do not know whether this is truly their hard demand. Reason to have doubt on this purported and unverified demand is founded on the total silence of the negotiation groups over the fate of the Nagas in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, though Myanmar Nagas cannot be involved now and quietly letting the UNC go ahead with their demand for alternative arrangement outside Manipur State and the ENPO for separate state apart from Nagaland. As mentioned earlier it is right for the people under UNC or ENPO jurisdiction to support their respective cause but is it not wrong that while asserting full support to the peace process for a lasting settlement of the Naga problem, the main part of which is stated to be Naga integration, they are at the same time demanding alternative arrangement or separate statehood of their own? Likewise it is right that the Nagas in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh have remained noncommittal, rather silent till date only for the fact that there is unfortunately no forceful leader amongst them who could trumpet their grievance like their counterpart in Manipur but is it not wrong to talk of only two states’ doubtful integration as if that will finally solve the entire Naga problem?
Or is the Naga problem now settled to a problem of rehabilitation, then settlement thereafter ownership for some section of doubtful settlers within a defined area in Nagaland by way of NSDZs? If this is not so why is the state government so desperate and some NGOs too laid-back, to remove or disarm the one and only provision (Art.371A) that protects the indigenous people and their land & resources from potential external forces or intrusion? Can the government give a warrantee that NSDZs is for investment only and not for other settlement? And has anyone bothered to ponder deeply whether the foothill road stretched beyond Dimapur to Khelma and subsequent declaration of NSDZs is actually meant to legalize permanent settlement of some people other than the indigenous inhabitant or whether the government is seriously contemplating to purchase this entire potential zone only for investment? It appears to me that NSDZs is simply a covert operation to legitimize the settlement and ownership of land & resources of some section of people other than the indigenous inhabitant of the state. Something is drastically wrong with the state government and some NGOs; instead of reclaiming the lost lands encroached by Assam they are wrestling with the other NGOs and stakeholders to give away the remaining lands to non locals, non Nagas with a tempting but poisonous bait in the form of NSDZs. I can be wrong before NSDZs but I can be right after NSDZs. Time will tell.
Coming back to the right or wrong the state government, the state government sympathized factions and the state government patronized organizations (actually there are hardly few NGOs in the state, most are GOs) in one chorus chant that formation of state-focused NTC is against the very spirit and process of integration, negotiation (God knows how) thereby willing and well-wisher, be it individual or group is not only discouraged but even restrained from becoming a part of it or its sponsored program. Given this weird situation what is there to justify about the high sounding holistic claim of integration or unity by some organizations which could not represent almost half of the total Naga tribes in the state or the exclusive and region-focused organizations in Manipur State and Frontier Nagaland? What possibly differentiate these exclusive groups from the NTC or vice versa in so far as integration or peace process is concerned? It cannot be differently right for those to assert their exclusive right outside and wrong for the NTC to similarly assert its exclusive right inside. As a matter of fact it is right, more factually the prerogative of the NTC to talk on the guaranteed rights of the state citizens and wrong on the part of some groups, the major composition of which is not from the state to determine or dictate the state-given rights or provisions. Unfortunately, many prefer to stand by the judgement of those which make the wrong right and the right wrong for questionable reason.
Then, what is there to say about the church organization beyond the forgotten liquor prohibition or is it liberated issue? Indeed church establishment is very busy with either or both structural development and human relationship building especially with those in power, as ‘make hay while the sun shine’ appears biblical and viable as well. Such is the prevailing situation with the church establishment there is virtually nothing to comment on its complete detachment with countless human problems although such problems could be something otherwise considered seriously critical in the secular world we live in. Of course faith is a personal thing but church is no less social although not exactly the type of social generally implied in secular sense, and church possibly cannot isolate itself from the spiralling social and political related predicament. Because what is religiously wrong can never be socially or politically right or vice versa. Neither can the church say spiritual and secular cannot be yoked together nor claim that the subject of right or wrong, good or evil should be limited to gospel or church pulpit. Therefore, we ought to judge whether it is right or wrong to drive the American way in the church only on Sunday and then drive the Indian way at home, work place, public place, quiet place or on public related problem for the remaining working days from Monday to Saturday. It may not be out of context to cite one small incident. A villager brought a large rooster to town for sale but the rooster wriggled out of the cage and escaped. The poor man desperately chased after his asset but it also attracted the colony youth and they too chased the stranger as thief. You know how he replied? “Don’t you worry, I am not a Christian”. This is how others see in Christians- materialistic, corrupt, immoral, pretentious, indifferent etc and similarly Christians see in Christians.
If George Orwell is with us today he might rephrase his words: “In a time of universal deceit, RESPONDING to the truth is a revolutionary act”.
If it is true; ‘Public opinion is the voice of God’, how I wish our opinion is heard at least as a human voice of the God we believe in.
