Khekiye K. Sema IAS (Rtd)
On the 20th June 2013 I received a phone call at 6.54 AM. The caller said, “Hello am I speaking to Mr. Khekiye”? “Yes” I said. “This is Imkong here. How are you”? “Oh Still alive, Sir” I replied. With a laugh he continued, “I read your bombshell. Thank you for your support. (That was a positive way of conveying the negative). Did you know that I promptly submitted my resignation on moral ground to the Governor after ‘that’ incident and it was accepted by the Governor? Am I expected to resign again for the second time for the same reason? Is that what you are suggesting”? In response I said, “Sir, firstly let me say that what I wrote was not personal. It was on a matter of principle concerning public morality that responsible people must be expected to uphold. I’m aware that you had resigned, yes sir. That was the right thing to do at that time. As for resigning for the second time for the same reason, it is not very much to do with first or the second time. You have criminal charges pending against you and it is incumbent upon you to clear your name before assuming public office because the stigma remains”. “Why”? he said, “There are so many Central Ministers with scam implications against them and yet they remain in office. Why should it be different in my case? Why should I be required to resign for the second time for the same commission”? In response I told him that I had no desire to get into a political wrangling and comparisons with him other than to say that “two wrongs do not make a right”. “That is your interpretation. You have the right to your interpretation but I don’t see it that way personally. Anyway how is your family”? He asked again. “We’re all good. Thank you, Sir”. End of the discussion. Let me state very clearly: Mr. Imkong was very polite and civil during this discussion and I do sincerely appreciate that. It was a pleasant way of discussing the unpleasant.
Before I go any further, let me ease the temperature by sharing with you another very strange thing that had happened during this discussion. Our mobile phones did not get disconnected ten times before we had finished our conversation! Wao! That was very unusually satisfying for a change. Perhaps it was the nature of our discussion that attracted the attention of the otherwise very busy Mr. Disconnection to temporarily suspend his normal activity. Kudos BSNL! Kudos! Mr. Disconnection has been overworked in Nagaland. BSNL must grant him a very long vacation. He deserves it and don’t allow him to ever report back for his kind of duty. Pleeeaaassseee!
The rest of the things I have to say are somewhat contentious. I have been debating with myself all this while as to whether I should bring this up in the public domain since this was a private conversation. Since you are reading about it you obviously know which side won this debate. The reason being, this is a subject that touches general issue of value system in the society that impacts on all of us. In all fairness, Mr. Imkong actually believes that since he had owned up to moral responsibility the first time round and had resigned, he was not expected to refuse induction in the fresh term because of the same incident. He was perhaps taking a cue on double jeopardy factor in law which stipulates that one cannot be persecuted twice for the same crime. The circumstance is somewhat different in this case. The point at issue here is that a criminal offence case has been registered against him. He has not been tried yet. The verdict against his questionable escapade still remains pending in court. The moral ground for which he had resigned in the first term does not amount to a conviction for the crime committed. The same moral ground remains unresolved. I am clearly aware that as per law, an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of law therefore, Mr. Imkong remains innocent even if he has not been absolved of his crime just yet. Even so, it would still be morally obligatory on his part to clear his name first before venturing into his new public assignment. It is in his interest to do so if he considers himself innocent. His presence in a public office naturally degrades the same office with ‘innocent suspicion’ hanging heavy over his head. That may not necessarily bother his conscience since politicians generally consider such thing as a natural hazard in line of their work. The public at large may not necessarily share his view. This was the difference in our opinion.
Arguing with politicians is more slippery and trickier than trying to catch a slippery eel. They are also like magicians. For every accusation against them, they can pull out a rabbit from their hat in explanation. They are capable of making fresh cow droppings smell like a rose in theory. Be that as it may, the focus is on the pending case against Mr. Imkong being in possession of Rs.1.10 crores unexplained. Oh we know this is just worth a cup of tea for them and he would have us believe that we have nothing to be alarmed about. He had arms and ammunition capable of withstanding a platoon of aggressors. He was in possession of liquor in violation of the prohibition law.
On this issue of prohibition however, I am inclined to think that perhaps the time is rife for the present Government to boldly consider abolition of the prohibition law for a simple reason that it has done more harm than good. The Commissioner Excise may publicize every single bottle of liquor being seized and destroyed by his Department. It does not amount to even a drop in the ocean. That he is doing his duty is well taken but in terms of a policy it is a big farce and a bigger sham. It is more than apparent that the Church has proven its impotency as an organization. They called for clean election and we have instead experienced the worst case of unclean election ever. Their sway over their congregation is suspect. The carrying of huge sum of money to purchase votes, the violation of prohibition law by Mr. Imkong happened 4/5 months back. The Church was campaigning against such a practice. With such flagrant violation being committed right in front of their eyes by a responsible personality, the Church has yet to utter one single comment on the subject even after so much of prompting. Expecting them to act is a futile cry in the wilderness. They must have misread Proverbs: Chapter I: Verse7: as “the fear of the politicians is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction”. As good intelligent Christians they must have taken this misread version rather seriously. Their silence is deafening! The comical part is the reversal fear shown by the politicians that the Church would rebel against the political party that abolishes prohibition law. This is an absolutely bull crap. Go ahead Mr. Chief Minister Sir and abolish prohibition. You will perhaps loose the bootlegger’s votes but they are the monopolistic minority. You will win your fourth round election hands down with the drinkers vote alone… My apologies for deviating from the main subject: I will conclude with a few questions. Will the Government /Speaker give the sanction to allow law to take its course in the case of Mr. Imkong? What is the considered view of the people of Nagaland/NGOs on this issue? Speak up!
