Nothing unsual about Nagaland’s emblem

Several Indian states have their own emblems

Unity Nagaland - Picture from The Calcutta TelegraphMaharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Sikkim are among those Indian states that use their own emblems, instead of the national Lion Capital. The reasons they choose to do so are not very different from the reasons why the Indian state of Nagaland has chosen to launch its own: tradition, uniqueness and identity. Those trying to read a lot more into Nagaland’s decision can save their energy. Out in Dimapur, the debate seems to be over aesthetics as much as politics.

6 thoughts on “Nothing unsual about Nagaland’s emblem”

  1. Interesting! I’ve always been interested to learn & understand the genesis of a symbol, logo or emblem.

    Might as well turn to the states we have in our country!

  2. Nagaland has never been part of india, although it was part of the British Raj. It was invaded by the newly independent india after the RAJ.

    Their uniqueness is more to do with the fact that they are a nation with own history and culture and ultimately destiny than that of india.

    Every nation and people has the right to sovereignty and freedom. It is about time that india is forced to end its inhuman occupation of nagaland.

  3. Nitin,

    I have visited nagaland, although i am not indian.

    I had no specific views about Nagaland prior to my visit. My opinions expressed above seemed to be the general consensus amongst the population.

    It is possible that I was unfortunate enough to encounter only this point view. However I doubt that is the case and prior to my visit to nagaland I did not view this state in any other way than it is an integral part of india.

    What threw me was the general level of hostility to everything indian and particularly the Hindi language. It was quite bizarre.

  4. MB444,

    If you travel across India, you will notice that hostility to the Hindi language is by no means unique to Nagaland. Hostility to ‘everything Indian’ is less common, but then, chauvinism based on region/language/community is quite common in India too.

    In any case, these do not support your earlier point about the Nagas being a their own nation on account of having their own language, history and culture. India happens to be a composite of several such ‘nations’.

    Btw, many parts of pre-Independence India were, like Nagaland, never part of ‘India’. That argument too does not prove your point.

    As for every nation deserving sovereignty and freedom, well, that sounds very good in principle. But this self-determination thing has been overstated. Check out the Balkans. What is important is whether people of different ethnicities, religions, cultures can live together harmoniously, each assured of their fundamental rights.

Comments are closed.