Rhetorical pretext

The repeated appeal for peace and unity by those in government, civil society organisations(CSOs) and various NGOs in Nagaland deserves serious examination against the realities visible on the ground, particularly in places such as Dimapur. Across much of the North East, public discourse increasingly centres on economic growth, infrastructure and development. In Nagaland too, these themes are present, but overshadowed by the Naga political issue. As a result, unity and peace are frequently presented not merely as social virtues, but as essential pre-conditions for political settlement and development.Yet the meaning of unity has become increasingly uncertain. For decades, public gatherings, collective statements and symbolic demonstrations have been treated as signs of unity. However, physical togetherness or rhetoric should not be mistaken for genuine social cohesion. A society may assemble under one banner and still remain divided in values, conduct and purpose. The test of unity lies not in slogans, but in whether individuals and organisations uphold justice, restraint and accountability in daily public life.The present social environment reveals a troubling contradiction. While many claim to speak in the name of the people though their influence is limited to narrow circles, they also hardly mean what they say. The ordinary citizen, caught between competing organisations and pressure groups, remains silent. This silence is not always consent but often reflects fear, fatigue or the consequences of challenging those who misuse social authority. In such a climate, anyone who dares to “call a spade a spade” risks being branded, shamed or isolated.Historically, Naga unity had deeper foundations. During the turbulent decades from the 1940s to the 1960s, unity was shaped by shared culture, faith and political aspiration, even if every leader did not think alike. The Naga movement drew strength from a collective sense of identity, history and destiny. Over the decades, however, that unity has been repeatedly tested. Tribal sentiments, competing ambitions and struggles for influence gradually weakened the moral centre of the movement. Still, these tensions did not completely destroy the broader sense of belonging.Today, however, society faces a more dangerous challenge- the misuse of Naga identity to justify anti-social conduct. Some invoke “Naga” sentiment while extortion, intimidation and parallel systems of authority continue to disturb public life. Predatory groups and unions across society have turned collection into a cottage industry in towns and cities. Others conduct kangaroo courts or claim authority to decide who has legitimacy and who does not. These practices weaken both governance and community trust.It is easy to blame the government for poor governance, and in many cases such criticism may be justified. However, CSOs and NGOs that claim moral authority over society must also accept corresponding responsibility. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities and so, if organisations speak for the people, they must also protect the people from coercion, exploitation and lawlessness.Infrastructure and economic development are important, but they alone cannot define progress. A society progresses when its members respect boundaries, protect justice and refuse to normalise fear. The road to peace cannot be cleared by rhetoric alone. It requires the courage to hold wrongdoers accountable, including those who operate under the cover of public causes. If unity is to have meaning, then it must collectively deal with the problems caused by the minority upon the silent majority and put a derailed society back on track of truth, responsibility and a collective moral action.