Kethoser (Aniu) Kevichusa
What do you call a Naga with a pet dog? A vegetarian! So goes the joke. The recent story of a Naga Ph.D scholar, Yoronso, along with two of his friends, getting caught ‘red-handed’ – quite literally – butchering a campus dog in his JNU hostel room has understandably aroused strong reactions both of contempt and of embarrassment.Writing about the episode in the 14 July issues of Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle, Ambika Shukla titles her article, rather melodramatically, ‘Murder Most Foul’, and calls Yoronso and his friends ‘criminals’. Irate, she demands that Yoronso should not just be made to leave the hostel, but that he should be ‘expelled and blacklisted’ from JNU. Apparently unsatisfied with that, she goes on to demand: ‘The University should also refuse to accept Yoronso’s Ph.D thesis, which his guide should also refuse to sign. The varsity must also revoke his Bachelor and Master’s Degrees, and co-operate with the police to chargesheet and arrest all the three men.’
Shukla is obviously a dog-lover. Thus her reaction. Shukla is also an Indian army officer’s wife and has spent time in Nagaland. She begins her article by narrating the story of ‘one of the most anxious days’ of their army posting in Nagaland. This ‘had nothing to do with the insurgency’, but was the day their dog went missing. She says: ‘After combing the area, my husband visited the Gaon Burha (village Pradhan) of the closest Naga settlement and spelt out all sorts of dire consequences if the dog did not return. Twenty minutes later, Bindu [their dog] was safely home.’
Now, it has to be granted by one and all that what Yoronso did is inexcusable. His explanation that it was in ‘self-defence’ is also hilarious. You just don’t bludgeon a dog – whether in self-defence, national-defence, or whatever else – in your bedroom in the middle of the night! You also don’t take, kill, or eat what is not rightfully yours! But it is not just Yoronso and his two friends, is it? Some Naga students studying outside Nagaland do go ‘dog-hunting’. (It could at this point be debated whether the question of ‘stealing’ really applies to stray dogs. But that’s for another day.) Of course, most Nagas don’t indulge in such nocturnal expeditions; but some certainly do. When I was a student in Pune, some of my Naga friends often had dog meat feasts deep into the night. A few non-Nagas – from different parts of India, not just the Northeast – though they did not join the hunts, often joined the feasts!
As far as I am concerned, I don’t think there is anything particularly savagely or saintly, heroic or horrendous, about eating or not eating dog meat. The culinary delights of a person or a region are often the disdain of another and vice versa. Having said that, Yoronso’s incident is an object lesson that Nagas will do well to learn from: That care must be taken, especially away from home, that unnecessary and gratuitous disrepute is not brought to the Naga people. There are many people who are only too prone and ready to dehumanize and look down on Nagas. Making headlines for recklessly bludgeoning a squealing dog in a hostel room in the middle of the night only feeds such prejudices and does the Naga people no favours whatsoever. Which brings me again to Ambika Shukla.
What concerns me about Shukla is that she is herself as reckless in her reaction as Yoronso was in his action. Her manner of condemnation of Yoronso’s action bespeaks an insidious violence that has to be challenged for what it is. To begin with, Shukla’s invective article is full of heavily-loaded terms: ‘combing’, ‘dire consequences’, ‘blacklist’, ‘revoke’, ‘chargesheet’, ‘arrest’, ‘criminals’. These terms have strong military connotations, Nagas are well familiar with such language, and hate it as much as dog-lovers hate dog-eaters.
Second, could it not be said that Shukla’s narrative of their missing dog is a telling reflection of the Indian army’s attitude and approach towards the Nagas? Wasn’t ‘combing’ the area and threatening the Goan Burha of the Naga village with ‘all sorts of dire consequences’ unless their dog was found a little too excessive? The Indian army is for the defence of the Indian State and not for threatening a village Gaon Burha to find an army officer’s pet dog. Or, is the story – and its implied success in finding the dog – perhaps even being retold as a subtle suggestion to intimidation, threat and violence?
Third, why should the Indian taxpayer, who is paying thousands upon thousands of crores every year to maintain the Indian military, not question the likes of the Shuklas whose more anxious days in conflict-rife Nagaland have ‘nothing to do with the insurgency’ but with their pets? Is that what the Indian public wants Indian army officers to worry about in Nagaland?
Fourth, isn’t Shukla’s suggested punishment for Yoronso over the top? Expel and blacklist him, refuse his Ph.D, revoke his BA and MA, chargesheet and arrest him as a criminal! This excessive, unrestrained reaction to the whole issue is again a reflection of a militarized psyche. Even if JNU were to take Shukla’s advice and mete out such punitive measures against Yoronso, would it, were it challenged, really hold in any proper law court? Alas! It might, if it goes to the Supreme Court of India. It is, after all, that court which upholds the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act that gives free rein to the Indian armed forces in the entire Northeast. Ah! And that is precisely why Indian army officers, and now their dog-loving wives, brashly contemn, condemn and threaten the way they do.
Have I politicized the whole issue? So be it. I’m only resisting those who are militarizing it. As for now, red-faced Yoronso and his friends must thank their stars that they are not in Ambika Shukla’s hands. If they were, chances are she would be ‘red-handed’ too.
