Systemic neglect of indigenous knowledge systems persists despite state-led tokenism in cultural preservation

The event frames indigenous knowledge as a static 'concept' to be 'shared' rather than a living, evolving system of land stewardship, governance, and cultural identity sustained by intergenerational transmission. Traditional practices like the *Morung* (youth dormitory) system in Naga societies historically integrated education, conflict resolution, and ecological knowledge, but the state's one-day programme reduces this to a folkloric spectacle. Indigenous knowledge is not merely 'content' to be curated but a holistic framework for resilience, as evidenced by practices like shifting cultivation that maintain biodiversity in fragile ecosystems.

The colonial and post-colonial state has systematically dismantled indigenous knowledge systems through policies like the Assam Land Revenue Regulation (1886), which imposed private property regimes on communal lands, and India's Forest Acts (1865, 1927), which criminalised traditional forest use. In Nagaland, the 1960s 'modernisation' programmes and later 'green revolution' policies displaced traditional agriculture, replacing diverse millet and tuber crops with hybrid seeds and chemical inputs. The *Morung* system, once central to Naga social organisation, was eroded by Christian missionary education and state schooling that denigrated indigenous epistemologies as 'primitive.'

Similar patterns of state co-optation appear in Mexico, where the government promotes 'indigenous tourism' while allowing mining and agribusiness to destroy sacred sites and traditional farming, echoing Nagaland's contradictions. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Waitangi Tribunal has documented how the state's 'cultural preservation' programmes fail to address land alienation, a parallel to Nagaland's unresolved land disputes under the Sixth Schedule. The contrast with Indigenous-led revitalisation efforts—such as the Māori *kaupapa Māori* education model or the Sami Parliament's land rights advocacy—highlights how tokenistic inclusion undermines systemic change.

Peer-reviewed studies confirm that traditional agricultural practices in Northeast India, including shifting cultivation, maintain higher soil biodiversity and carbon sequestration than industrial monocultures, yet these are dismissed as 'backward' in state policies. Research on the *Morung* system reveals its role in conflict mediation and ecological knowledge transmission, challenging the state's framing of it as mere 'cultural heritage.' The event's lack of scientific rigour—no peer-reviewed documentation of the 'concepts' shared, no baseline data on traditional practices' decline—mirrors the broader failure to integrate indigenous knowledge into formal education and policy frameworks.

Indigenous knowledge systems are deeply intertwined with artistic and spiritual practices, as seen in Naga oral epics, textile motifs encoding agricultural cycles, and animist rituals governing resource use. The state's reduction of these systems to 'concepts' strips them of their sacred and artistic dimensions, turning living traditions into museum artefacts. In contrast, Indigenous artists like the Māori *tohunga* (carvers) or the Maya *ajq'ij* (spiritual guides) centre artistic and spiritual practice as tools for decolonisation and ecological restoration.

Future scenarios for Nagaland hinge on whether indigenous knowledge systems are treated as relics or as adaptive frameworks for climate resilience and food sovereignty. Modelling by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that traditional agroecological practices could reduce vulnerability to droughts and floods, yet state policies continue to prioritise high-input agriculture. The event's lack of long-term planning—no follow-up, no integration into school curricula, no legal recognition of traditional knowledge—signals a trajectory toward further erosion rather than revitalisation.

The framing excludes Naga farmers—particularly women, who are primary custodians of seed knowledge and agricultural practices—youth who are migrating due to lack of economic opportunities, and Indigenous scholars critiquing state-led 'preservation.' It also omits the voices of communities displaced by hydroelectric projects (e.g., the 1960s Doyang Dam) or mining (e.g., coal extraction in Mokokchung), whose lands and knowledge systems are directly targeted by 'development.' The absence of these voices reflects a broader pattern where indigenous knowledge is spoken *about* rather than *by* those who sustain it.