Moa Jamir
The recent directive attributed to what appears to be a newly formed Naga political group, seeking to regulate business activities through compulsory Sunday closures and restrictions on non-local businesses, brings into focus a longstanding governance dilemma in the State.
The concept of parallel governance, broadly understood as the coexistence of constitutional government and competing claims of authority outside the formal State apparatus, offers a useful framework. In Nagaland, however, the concept requires a more nuanced, context-specific understanding. This is shaped by the State's chequered political history and successive negotiations towards an elusive “inclusive solution.”
The Government of India's engagement with Naga Political Groups through ceasefire agreements, ground rules and successive agreements forms part of an overarching political process aimed at resolving the Naga issue. This has contributed to a complex political and administrative reality. However, such engagement should not be conflated with blanket legal recognition of every organisation or its claim to exercise governmental authority.The October 23 directive is significant because it moves beyond political advocacy into the domain of ordinary governance, with a non-state organisation asserting regulatory authority that overlaps with that of the government.
The State's response also reflects a catch-22 inherent in parallel governance: responding directly risks conferring legitimacy, while silence may leave a vacuum for others to fill. The Dimapur district administration's reaffirmation of the government's authority and the statutory powers of elected municipal bodies is instructive. The approach suggests that the top elected and permanent executives are seeking to keep the matter within the domain of law enforcement and statutory administration, rather than elevate a newly surfaced group into a political talking point. While this may be intended to avoid the appearance of competing political authorities, restraint cannot mean inaction. Without visible reassurance and effective enforcement, compliance driven by apprehension or intimidation risks lending such directives practical legitimacy.
In this context, statements from the Confederation of Nagaland Chamber of Commerce and Industries (CNCCI) , Naga Council Dimapur and other civil society organisations, alongside interventions from other political groups, are equally revealing. Beyond questioning the State government's response, these interventions can also be read as reflecting resistance to the emergence of another political organisation, alongside a broader sentiment favouring the consolidation and streamlining of existing Naga political groups and the peace process. The counter-directives issued by other Naga political organisations further demonstrate that the contest is not simply between the State and a non-state actor. It also involves competing claims within the Naga political landscape itself. The fragmentation of political authority, rather than merely the latest directive, is therefore part of the underlying problem.
The concerned group reportedly issued a subsequent clarification, stating that the 30-day deadline for addressing “drug-related activities and prostitution” had been inadvertently placed under the provision concerning non-local businesses. While the clarification sought to correct the scope of the original directive, it did little to address the underlying question of the regulation of commercial activities. Instead, it appeared to invoke emotive appeals to Naga identity, migration, political aspirations and religious sentiment, shifting attention from questions of legality and jurisdiction.
Seasoned observers familiar with Nagaland's political landscape may construe such pronouncements as rhetoric or posturing. However, for those less familiar, the circulation of such directives has created genuine apprehension. This makes the media's responsibility particularly important, especially for emerging digital platforms.
In a conflict-affected society, reporting must be contextualised and guided by the principle of minimising harm. Publishing statements without adequate context carries the risk of inadvertently amplifying claims of authority or creating a misleading impression of their status. Responsible reporting does not mean withholding coverage; rather, it calls for careful contextualisation and proportionate editorial scrutiny.
For any feedback, drop a line to [email protected]
