Much water has flown down the bridge since the desire to change with the vicissitude of time was first mooted and explored by progressive Kuki thinkers. From then to now, we seemed stuck in a "stupefied" limbo. If any stride has been made during the interregnum, it is either incomplete or lopsided. In the arguments that follow, the writer makes a case for the need to reinvent culture, with particular emphasis on Chieftainship in Kuki society. Please note that it's not a policy statement, neither is it a truth proposition; it is merely a reflection of personal anxiety explored in the belief that unless the presence of a problem is acknowledged, no solution can be sought. It other words, the broader issue of tradition and modernity is minified and handled with a view to a healthy change rather than summarily rejecting change altogether in any form.
Modernity Vs Tradition
Modernity can be effectively traced back to the storming of Bastille in 1789 in a precursor to French Revo-
lution. Enlightenment as a child of modernity took its firm root in the Revolutionís bedrock slogan 'liberty,
equality, fraternity. The Age of Reason was ushered in and established doctrines were challenged. Under-standably, modernity is not just about fad and fashionable outlook. What it is, it is first a mental state of mind, of values and ideals; the essence of which lies in one's ability to rationalize scientifically either through inductive or deductive reasoning. However, science without humanism is doomed to extinction. Conclusively then, everything modern is not necessarily good, and all that is traditional is not essentially defective. The bottom line is: both lines of thinking have a scientific basis. But just as Science outlives its utility, traditional values are put through critical test.
Every society has its own institutionalized network of organizing and managing affairs which is variously called culture, custom or tradition. It is a shared perception of knowledge and values of a generation which is passed on to the next. Chieftainship is one such primordium institution. It was a perfect system located in that time and space. There are good reasons why it wouldnít work in its antiquated form today. The strain between tradition and modernity is inescapable here.
Technically speaking, it is an exacting system of law, unwritten yet institutionalized through hundreds of years of practice. In a typical village setting, the chief is the ultimate law, a sovereignty and omnipotent. The villagers have neither property nor political right. Effectively, they can dwell on the land as long as they enjoy the privilege of the chief. Consequently, democracy as a modern system of governance attacks right at the heart of Chieftainship (never mind the system is protected under the Constitution). Democracy is not just about giving discernible citizen constitutional rights, it is also about educating the uninformed of that rights. It is about equity and fair play. It is unfortunate that we demand democratic fairness only when it profits us. The moment the table turns to our disadvantage, we want to change the terms of engagement.
We will do well to remember that the strain between the two worldview and cognition is of recent origin the colonial British being the bearer and disseminator of modernity in our case. Through the medium of railway, postal and education, the modern liberal notion of rights began to challenge our traditional conception of life, liberty and property. There is a reason why there was no conflict in olden times: we were isolated, thinly
populated and organized in a rudimentary "tribal" arrangement. Today, most of us know our rights and best of all we are exposed to all sorts of philosophizing. We too are global citizen!
Gambling with Tradition
Jhumming cultivation which is a bane of today's carbon distressed world was earlier possible, by and large, because factors like lesser population and availability of vast swath of land to allow for shifting cultivation remained slightly favorable. With the rise in population, and forest and environment becoming the policy guide
of modern governments, forest dwellers had to reinvent their economy. Being uprooted from their traditional
occupations, hands went up in the air scrambling for government's patronage. Unfortunately, the archaic system of Chieftainship was re-oiled again and funds and assistances (NREGS and other) were paid out through it. Expectedly, all the chiefs jumped to the prospect of earning with the title. As if it was not enough,
many more unscrupulous freeloaders began to found villages and assign themselves to the chiefly throne.
Interestingly, these newfangled villages don't have dwellers although official records tell a different tale:
while some exist only in paper, most of these new villages conjure up an image of "ghost town". Even in
villages that had impeccable legacy, there are reports now of widespread exaggeration and misrepresentation of households and denial of rights. Without any legal recourse available, the villagers are dying a slow death
for want of livelihood, while the chiefs are riding roughshod over them. I kind of blame the government too for
introducing something like NREGA without first putting in place a foolproof mechanism to foreclose abusing the system. If we refuse to take cognizance of the problem at hand, we stand to lose much more than our "identity".
It is not necessary that we adopt modernity. Only that we are part of a modern world system today. In the
event of two cultures coming together the world being glocal (global+local) today one invariably gets tamed. Thatís a fact. I am not suggesting that get tamed, but the way I see it, either we modify out cultural gene or risk being consumed.
Any attempt to cling to tradition without so much as the willingness to accept the fault-lines tantamount to unprincipled romanticism. Culture is created for men, not men for culture. It is neither static nor exclusive, it constantly evolves with time. Thus if certain cultural trait becomes anachronistic, it is prudent to try and improvise rather than change oneself to fit into the mismatch. The ever evolving nature of culture only strengthens the case that some form of give-and-take is inevitable. Changes that are forced on us by conniving authorities may be stiffly resisted. But changes necessitated by circumstances are worth giving a second thought. If we continue to stick to our guns regarding the need to maintain pristine form, we would only be scripting our annihilation. It is saddening to flag that we have almost come full circle in out blas in difference in destroying our Chieftainship. To prevent change from happening is against the spirit of nature; for change is the only constant.
We badly need fine-tuning our ailing local administrative system. A prototype of modern British monarchy may be explored. I m just saying, "may be". The argument that acculturation is akin to selling oneself away is a farcical panic. Even in the mighty British Empire where the sun never set, sweeping wind of change had affected the DNA of its monarchy, shifting the balance of power in favor of civil authority. If tens of centuries old Monarchy had been made a toothless lion, there must be a merit to the succeeding Parliamentary Government. Stories across the world were very similar to British, only that the British maintained a continuum by according titular status to its Queen. In rest of today's "First World" countries, the Kings and Queens were given marching orders. The catchword of this change was "power to the people". Giving-in doesnít mean submitting to fatalism. The point is not whether we want the change or not, but that the sooner we realize the need, the quicker we shall get to the next stage of human evolution. For if we obstruct change adamantly, we will lose out on the opportunity to rectify and restore it to its modern avatar.
Many Kuki elders ill-conceive colonial British recognition of our Chieftainship to be exhibiting magnanimity and respect. Thatís one reason why its proponents want its status maintained. Letís not forget that
our forefathers fought valiantly against them rather than seek their approval. Edward Said in his "Orientalism" makes it amply clear of the misguided, bias and preconceived notion of the Orient by the West. What seemed like magnanimity was pretention with an imperialist agenda.
But then again, just as we help shape "tomorrow", we are fashioned by "yesterday". So we must value yesterdayís ideals and practices. And just as today is not the same as yesterday and neither are we the same
yesterday and today, our ideals and practices either become obsolete or take on a new avatar.
