Violence, intolerance and lack of respect for diversity

Even as the dawn of a new century brought many hopes, it is true that there are more unrests developing worldwide. There are also newer apprehensions in terms of global order and the issue of legitimacy and illegitimacy has become so thin when it comes to the use of violence as an expression and means of intolerance. Everyday we are haunted with images, occurring and recurring from different regions of the world which pains and frighten us. Human security has never been so elusive than in contemporary times.

Although violence is interchangeably described with power, the study of violence has not been given its deemed position. Political Philosopher Hannah Arendt thus says: “no one engaged in thought about history and politics can remain unaware of the enormous role violence has always played in human affairs, and it is at first glance rather surprising that violence has not been singled out so seldom for consideration”. In terms of conflict emerging between the state and the people, the state often derives its power by legitimizing the use of violence and the other parties are de-legitimized in its use of violence to defend. In whichever case, there can be no justification for the use of violence as a means to an end.

And therefore, it is encouraging to note that a new international precedence has been created through diplomatic and communicative approaches, where violence can be relegated to the background through diplomacy, negotiations, participatory mechanisms and conflict resolutions.

Nevertheless, much of the violence that we experience comes from intolerance. Intolerance often emerges from supremacist perspective, where power and responsibilities are abused. We are all familiar with the holocaust experience under Hitler and the likes, and the more recent genocides between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda and so and so forth. Violence is often aggravated because of compulsive hatred and also because of repulsive protest. Political intolerance and domination are often more protracted because it leads to political violence.

The teachings of great religions stress appreciation for life and finding a meaning for living. But we have seen how religion, culture, race and language etc. have been engaged as a weapon of dominance and hatred. We have also experienced situations where these identities, instead of been appreciated upon, are employed for homogenizing the minority.

In the Naga context, our ancestors were free and proud people, where human integrity was placed above all values. It was the undefined jurisprudence for human relationships and the seed of all political dignity.

The British colonials brought an international dimension to the Naga nationhood. They advocated supremacist believes. But we also learned that they were not invincible, although parts of our lands and people were brought under their control.

It was the neo-colonization of Nagas by independent India and Burma that we have learned more about the crude technicalities of intolerance and have seen much violence than any other time in our history till today. The use of military force to subjugate and kill, the profession of non-secular views to deprive or degrade our cultures and practices, the stereotype construction of Nagas as “evil” images, the control of our markets and destruction of traditional institutions and practices, and the gross violations of war ethics have all contributed to a dimensional damage that goes much beyond the political.

Most vicious of all the atrocities that Nagas faced under these circumstances is, perhaps, the psychological aftermath and repercussions from war by other means. We were divided and we also became intolerant to a very large extend. But violence cannot be measured in terms of its physicality alone. The psychical violence that has been perpetrated remained ingrained since that generation till the present generation.

Here it is worthwhile to mention that Nagas have, in the first of its kind, initiated a “peoples-to-peoples” dialogue in the year 2000 to the people of India, to reach out and touch each other’s hearts and minds for all the human sufferings our peoples have undergone.

The current cease-fire and the mere absence of violence cannot be interpreted as peace. The political negotiations and the peace processes that are taking place are just the beginning of a journey. For a sustainable and meaningful peace, the political root cause has to be addressed and negotiated without compromising on principles. Similarly, the rampant hatred and political intolerance that has been inflicted upon all affected people will be sorted out once a political solution is derived at.

There can be no self-respect or respect for each other without addressing the realities that shape and run the course of history and mankind. The diversity of the world’s population, even on the question of identity – as we have seen, more so with indigenous peoples – has never been really understood nor misunderstood in it’s real sense of the term. Rather, it was never recognized. Diversity can only be appreciated only when it is exposed and proclaimed as equals.

The challenges that are taking place throughout the world have also reached its moment. The technological advancement and the neo-liberal market or governance systems that are emerging from the developed countries are adding more pressures much beyond the boundaries of nation-states. The social relations, the political conditions, and the economic disparity, through one form or the other are undergoing transformations, at a very peculiar stage and at a very subtle level. It requires more commitment with cautious dedication from all of us, as defenders of humanity and dignity in the worth of a human person.

By Neingulo Krome

 (Neingulo Krome is a senior leader in the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights. The above is an edited version of a paper presented on 8^th May 2004, on the World Red Cross Day at Kohima Red Cross Building)