It goes without saying that the varied natures of the optics of sections of people are also key attributes to differences on the Naga political issue. This is because circumstances or the different climates of different standpoints determine optics of the people. The differences become more glaring when each section starts responding to their respective understandings and treating them as primus inter pares.
The ‘Naga trajectory’ informs us that, for decades there were and there have been sections of people who tried/try to situate the Naga political issue in so many contexts and perspectives of their respective times and seasons, and the relevance of it. However, the Naga political movement continues to sustain. Actually, the change and modifications are the circumstances and standpoints of various sections of people and their political optics, and not the issue itself.
Let us also argue this way. To a viewer, an object changes its shapes and sizes according to the changing viewpoints. In fact, the shapes and sizes of the object do not change. This can be considered as a sort of an analogy on how sections of people form and conclude their points of arguments from their respective standpoints without bothering to find out the truth. Such is, in fact, an illusion. Since illusion is not real, what is not real does not work.
On the sustenance of the Naga movement or how it survives the shoves, there are many reasons. One reason has been due to the correct optics of sections of people who see the issue in its correct perspective and form.
‘Accords’ and ‘agreements’ were signed with the Government of India in this regard, but they failed to resolve the problem. It was because those ‘agreements’ or ‘accords’ were signed according to the optics of people who were either in the standpoints which did not give the right size and shape of the issue or had taken the circumstances of the times as priority rather than the issue.
No circumstance is static. If one is treating circumstances as priorities and ignoring the issue, obviously the ‘agreements’ and ‘accords’ will become redundant with the changing climates of circumstances. Making and unmaking ‘accords’ and ‘agreements’ to suit the circumstances of times or seasons would mean more ‘agreements’ and ‘accords’ with the unfurling of circumstances and situations brought about by times.
Anything else but an issue that demands to address injustice does not change with time. The Naga movement has so much to do with this issue. Perhaps, it is one big movement against injustice.
Addressing the circumstances or addressing the issue, there is so much ‘laissez-faire’ at least to start talking about this gaping hole loudly today.
Witoubou Newmai
