For the Love of Konyaks, I Hereby Cut the Shawl

In recent past, the imprint of Ao shawl in Air India invited and triggered different reactions and responses from individuals  particularly for fact that it neither seek permission nor had the legitimate consent of the Government of Nagaland and the Ao Senden, the highest apex body of the Aos. The local paper saw the flow of debates and comments as to whether it was at all appropriate and logical on grounds that it was equivalent to ‘epistemological trespassing’ and was contrary to the essence of the shawl itself.
Before even this memory is erased, the recent act of Dinesh Kumar, former Deputy Commissioner of Mon and his episode of cutting the Konyak Shawl into pieces calls us to question on stake of our cultural values and heritage with its aesthetic elements and nature that we sing and talk of often. While the Ao’s “Tsüngkotepsü” is supposed to be flying it its full glory, the Konyak “Enkhek” has been crushed and disgraced into meaningless stature. Dinesh Kumar as reported in Nagaland Post, dated 9th August, 2011 later stated that “I would like to clarify that nothing was done intentionally; me and my family always respect and love the Konyak traditions and customary values”. Dinesh Kumar however displayed his true love and affection for the Konyaks by making mockery of the shawl which is gifted with respect, love and honour and is the very symbol and embodiment of those characters. A man with his stature and his proclaimed love for the people should have known that for the Konyaks, a Shawl and a Dao was the paramount and significant two material aspects of everyday livelihood till the recent past and even today embedded and represented in it with meanings and unspoken values. His apology of ‘unintentional’ question not only in his state of ‘ignorance’ but also his ‘inability to appreciate’ the cultural idioms and thus trampled on it which is tantamount to the highest degree of insult. The love for the Konyak or any other tradition or society should be preceded by discerning that particular cultural context and make a conscious attempt to be little sensible and pragmatic to ‘do’s and don’ts’ then in the end to merely justify oneself and evade with being ‘unintentional’ and ‘unconscious’.
The incident also permeates a lesson to our own attitude towards our cultural heritage. It is significant that while bombarding our disagreements and dissent at times of such reckless incidents, we do not negate our responsibility of upholding and performing the requisite duties for such preservation or else we become compliance for cultural degeneration. If we do so, we can evade such devolution. The general public or the civil bodies as a ‘giver’ of these gifts on one hand should be conscious to whom these gifts are gifted (I am not against gifts giving but little concern as to how we take the practice at face value) while the distinguished individual(s) as ‘recipient’ should be sensible to the perceptions of the material aspects of the locals which are valued and are the representation in its highest form. I am also tempted to point out as how today, our material culture such as shawl, bag, ornaments and so forth are cheaply commercialized and publicized. If one walks around the markets, you would not fail to notice the replication or duplication of the Konyak bags which are sold in huge quantity (I hope this imply to my fellow Nagas as well. I also do not negate the locally produced goods but emphasis is on other than local produced goods). I am here concerned for the poor local weavers who have no space and no matches for competition against the machine produced goods and are then pushed back behind the veil and scene. This not only restricts the production of goods in its utmost indigenous and genuine form but also an instrumental in the decrease of weavers as agents of production. I remember an incident, when a friend of mine in Delhi once asked me ‘Is that a Mizo bag’? I wished, I had an awesome answer to respond without any doubt.