Recently one Chakhesang leader of high standing, Chotisuh Sazo (MLA), got into the spotlight of discussion for saying that ‘Backward Tribe’ (BT for short) status for Chakhesang people has today become ‘a matter of great shame.’ There was at least some to laud him on this statement. He was even likened to biblical Jeremiah and Isaiah who spoke courageously for social justice by Thepfulhouvi Solo (IFS), one local writer I admire for his nerves of steel to speak out what he believes are right and true. Interestingly but not surprisingly Sazo, like the prophets of old, was questioned by some of his/our own people. Perhaps it may be too early to dismiss him on the ground of this statement per se as the notion of ‘shame’ has deep implications in understanding the whole moral philosophy and social fabrics of Naga indigenous people, at least amongst the Chakhesang community. To judge his expression therefore in the light of modern understanding only (I too was initially tempted to do so) would obviously result in miscarriage of its traditional meaning and purpose. This in turn may multiply misunderstanding and confusion. In any case some may genuinely find him guilty as a leader, if not for any other reason, at least for his inability to identify with the sentiments of the people he represents.
Earlier even our Chief Secretary, Lalthara, (IAS) got himself entangled with this issue of reservation for publicly making some personal observations. On seeking clarification by the Chakhesang leaders, he referred to some committee reports as one of his points of justification for holding such a considered opinion. The reports according to him reveal that the Chakhesang people are socio-economically and educationally more advanced than the average Nagas. After supposedly conducting an extensive survey it was reported that the Chakhesang people scored 155 against the State average of 147 in terms of socio-economic development indicators and in the educational advancement indicators, 49 against the State average of 35. Taking only this aspect of the report in isolation and highlighting it to underscore a point may not be in line with the final findings of the reports. Let me attempt a simple counter example: The fact that the literacy rate of Nagaland is higher than the national literacy rate need not deprive the Naga students from availing tribal reservation or tribal scholarship in the educational institutions or put us into the general category. Being above the group average does not mean one is good enough, especially if the majority is below average. Finding the average of some arbitrary group against the state or national average in third world countries can be misleading as the ratio of underdeveloped are often more than the developed. It will not surprise me if in Nagaland the population of BT is more than the non-BT. In short if what Lalthara pointed out is accurate, then I doubt that the reports themselves are free from methodological defects.
There is another point closely related to this. Just because Chakhesangs have made some noticeable progress in terms of certain developmental indicators compared to others in the same boat need not disqualify us immediately from being a part of that boat. To use an example, suppose we do a survey of all the tribal groups in India and if it is found that the Nagas are faring better than others (and to a great extend this is true), should the Nagas forego the privileges meant for scheduled tribes and joined the general category? There are implications in saying either yes or no.
However if Chakhesang people are required to be included within the non-BT group, then I think the scoring has to be measured primarily against that group, not against the overall state average or BT average. To use a boxing analogy, is it fair for a boxer of 50 kg category to fight others in 60 kg category? Perhaps in some case, but this is not the main point I want to draw your attention to. What I would rather like to highlight is the fact that the capacity of the boxer alone is not enough to play a fair game against a stronger opponent even if he agrees to; there are extra factors that need to be considered in boxing game, such as more diet, special training and coaching, etc. Similarly certain measures need to be taken care of before the Chakhesang people are told to move out of the present category.
Avoiding all technical discussions on rights and justice, perhaps no one would seriously disagree to this point – that for the purpose of realizing a better society or to right the wrong done in history, sometimes it becomes necessary to enlarge the meanings of rights and justice even at the cost of twisting their accepted definitions. Various kinds of protected rights and welfare values and principles for minorities or less privileged people enshrined in the Indian Constitution are a case in point. At least, I see reservation policies for ‘backward tribes’ in Nagaland within this enlarged sense of rights and justice. Accordingly I fail to understand how exercising such rights by the ‘backward tribes’ would mean injustice to our ‘neighbors’ as hinted by some. On the contrary, failure to exercise such rights would mean insult to those enlightened souls who worked hard to recognize such rights and justice; it would reflect the irresponsible and arrogant attitude, the kind that reflect inflated egos and pride, of those for whom special rights have been granted. Of course, since the resources are limited, granting certain privileges to certain groups would imply the deprivation of some privileges to some other groups. But ironically this precisely is the logic of such notions of enlarged rights and justice. This as a matter of fact underscores the essence of all social justice and morality. Being good or morale requires one to sacrifice some immediate interests for the sake of others, for the sake of higher good.
Reservation policy for the BT is not an absolute right to claim on the other hand. From the idea that society ‘ought’ to help the needy, it does not follow that the needy therefore earns the right to claim help. That is why instead of recognizing begging as a right, our law has made it illegal. However by virtue of formal agreement and proclamation, legitimate rights can be created. But the nature of rights in such a case arises primarily on the nature of agreement and as such they should not be mistaken to be some kind of birth right or fundamental right. They are not fundamental in that failure to enjoy such rights will not negate our humanity and dignity. They are an aid, not necessary condition, to express or pursue our humanity. In view of this, it is imperative to periodically review such rights so that they will not be misused to the disadvantage of others at a significant scale. In the meantime, it would be unbecoming of any group to organize rallies, protests or agitations in a manner that does not befit democratic society either to get or retain ‘backward’ (or minority or scheduled) status. But the reality is that the political scenario in India (Nagaland is not an exception) is increasingly being confronted by movements and issues of this disturbing type.
There is one general misconception that requires some attention – that is, reservation policies breed complacency and inhibit the capacity of the people from releasing their full potentials; that they numb the competitive spirit. This is a self defeating proposition. If this were to be true then Chakhesang people would not have made any significant progress. But the fact that today there are concerned people debating and considering the possibility of removing the label ‘backward’ to Chakhesang people proves otherwise. What I would admit perhaps is that in the name of such label, more avenues for politics of corruption and division have come about in our general Naga society. This in turn is adversely affecting the people who have been labeled as ‘back ward’ as well as others who are without this label.
I believe that only good politics is a solution to deal with an issue of this sort. What has been created by noble politics should be uncreated by similar politics even if it is proved to have outlived its purpose. There should be a way to bring every noble thing to its honorable closure. It is in this regard that I fully support CPO’s decision to challenge the acts of government through the court of law for its attempt to dismiss the Chakhesang people in dishonorable manner. CPO should be duly commented for doing its bit in upholding the democratic principles of the country. Chakhesang people deserve the honor of saying “thank you” to the government and the Naga people for the perk even if for convincing reasons we have to let go off the ‘backward’ label at one time or the other. Achievement of such a policy (originally intended as a tool for social change by way of bridging developmental imbalance) should be recognized and celebrated. I believe that Chakhesang people are capable of reasoning and that if right initiatives are taken to address the issue at hand, it can go a long way towards providing proto-type model for solving problems related to this, both at state level as well as national level. Perhaps more!
(The writer is presently teaching Logic at the University of Hyderabad)
Earlier even our Chief Secretary, Lalthara, (IAS) got himself entangled with this issue of reservation for publicly making some personal observations. On seeking clarification by the Chakhesang leaders, he referred to some committee reports as one of his points of justification for holding such a considered opinion. The reports according to him reveal that the Chakhesang people are socio-economically and educationally more advanced than the average Nagas. After supposedly conducting an extensive survey it was reported that the Chakhesang people scored 155 against the State average of 147 in terms of socio-economic development indicators and in the educational advancement indicators, 49 against the State average of 35. Taking only this aspect of the report in isolation and highlighting it to underscore a point may not be in line with the final findings of the reports. Let me attempt a simple counter example: The fact that the literacy rate of Nagaland is higher than the national literacy rate need not deprive the Naga students from availing tribal reservation or tribal scholarship in the educational institutions or put us into the general category. Being above the group average does not mean one is good enough, especially if the majority is below average. Finding the average of some arbitrary group against the state or national average in third world countries can be misleading as the ratio of underdeveloped are often more than the developed. It will not surprise me if in Nagaland the population of BT is more than the non-BT. In short if what Lalthara pointed out is accurate, then I doubt that the reports themselves are free from methodological defects.
There is another point closely related to this. Just because Chakhesangs have made some noticeable progress in terms of certain developmental indicators compared to others in the same boat need not disqualify us immediately from being a part of that boat. To use an example, suppose we do a survey of all the tribal groups in India and if it is found that the Nagas are faring better than others (and to a great extend this is true), should the Nagas forego the privileges meant for scheduled tribes and joined the general category? There are implications in saying either yes or no.
However if Chakhesang people are required to be included within the non-BT group, then I think the scoring has to be measured primarily against that group, not against the overall state average or BT average. To use a boxing analogy, is it fair for a boxer of 50 kg category to fight others in 60 kg category? Perhaps in some case, but this is not the main point I want to draw your attention to. What I would rather like to highlight is the fact that the capacity of the boxer alone is not enough to play a fair game against a stronger opponent even if he agrees to; there are extra factors that need to be considered in boxing game, such as more diet, special training and coaching, etc. Similarly certain measures need to be taken care of before the Chakhesang people are told to move out of the present category.
Avoiding all technical discussions on rights and justice, perhaps no one would seriously disagree to this point – that for the purpose of realizing a better society or to right the wrong done in history, sometimes it becomes necessary to enlarge the meanings of rights and justice even at the cost of twisting their accepted definitions. Various kinds of protected rights and welfare values and principles for minorities or less privileged people enshrined in the Indian Constitution are a case in point. At least, I see reservation policies for ‘backward tribes’ in Nagaland within this enlarged sense of rights and justice. Accordingly I fail to understand how exercising such rights by the ‘backward tribes’ would mean injustice to our ‘neighbors’ as hinted by some. On the contrary, failure to exercise such rights would mean insult to those enlightened souls who worked hard to recognize such rights and justice; it would reflect the irresponsible and arrogant attitude, the kind that reflect inflated egos and pride, of those for whom special rights have been granted. Of course, since the resources are limited, granting certain privileges to certain groups would imply the deprivation of some privileges to some other groups. But ironically this precisely is the logic of such notions of enlarged rights and justice. This as a matter of fact underscores the essence of all social justice and morality. Being good or morale requires one to sacrifice some immediate interests for the sake of others, for the sake of higher good.
Reservation policy for the BT is not an absolute right to claim on the other hand. From the idea that society ‘ought’ to help the needy, it does not follow that the needy therefore earns the right to claim help. That is why instead of recognizing begging as a right, our law has made it illegal. However by virtue of formal agreement and proclamation, legitimate rights can be created. But the nature of rights in such a case arises primarily on the nature of agreement and as such they should not be mistaken to be some kind of birth right or fundamental right. They are not fundamental in that failure to enjoy such rights will not negate our humanity and dignity. They are an aid, not necessary condition, to express or pursue our humanity. In view of this, it is imperative to periodically review such rights so that they will not be misused to the disadvantage of others at a significant scale. In the meantime, it would be unbecoming of any group to organize rallies, protests or agitations in a manner that does not befit democratic society either to get or retain ‘backward’ (or minority or scheduled) status. But the reality is that the political scenario in India (Nagaland is not an exception) is increasingly being confronted by movements and issues of this disturbing type.
There is one general misconception that requires some attention – that is, reservation policies breed complacency and inhibit the capacity of the people from releasing their full potentials; that they numb the competitive spirit. This is a self defeating proposition. If this were to be true then Chakhesang people would not have made any significant progress. But the fact that today there are concerned people debating and considering the possibility of removing the label ‘backward’ to Chakhesang people proves otherwise. What I would admit perhaps is that in the name of such label, more avenues for politics of corruption and division have come about in our general Naga society. This in turn is adversely affecting the people who have been labeled as ‘back ward’ as well as others who are without this label.
I believe that only good politics is a solution to deal with an issue of this sort. What has been created by noble politics should be uncreated by similar politics even if it is proved to have outlived its purpose. There should be a way to bring every noble thing to its honorable closure. It is in this regard that I fully support CPO’s decision to challenge the acts of government through the court of law for its attempt to dismiss the Chakhesang people in dishonorable manner. CPO should be duly commented for doing its bit in upholding the democratic principles of the country. Chakhesang people deserve the honor of saying “thank you” to the government and the Naga people for the perk even if for convincing reasons we have to let go off the ‘backward’ label at one time or the other. Achievement of such a policy (originally intended as a tool for social change by way of bridging developmental imbalance) should be recognized and celebrated. I believe that Chakhesang people are capable of reasoning and that if right initiatives are taken to address the issue at hand, it can go a long way towards providing proto-type model for solving problems related to this, both at state level as well as national level. Perhaps more!
(The writer is presently teaching Logic at the University of Hyderabad)
