THE TALK ABOUT SUGAR DADDIES IN NAGALAND

By now we all know what 'Sugar Daddy' is. This term can go both ways, either as derogatory or neutral. In the former, it implies a relationship based on financial support in exchange of companionship which can sometimes have sexual component and has power dynamics. In the latter, it is used to describe a wealthy patron in a light hearted way/ often as a joke. 

Sugar Daddy, there is an ambiguity surrounding the origination of this term. There are 3 popular accounts suggesting the origination of this term.

1908- Sugar Daddy was a pet name for Adolph B. Spreckels, heir to the Spreckels Sugar fortune, by his much younger wife, Alma de Bretteville Spreckels, who called him her 'sugar daddy'. However, this story serves as unreliably sourced. Etymologists have questioned the accuracy of this story, indicating a lack of contemporary evidence.

1923- The term's first known appearance in print is often connected to the publicity surrounding the 1923 unsolved killing of Dorothy "Dot" King (a New York flapper). Her major benefactor, a wealthy financier, was referred to in her love letters as her 'heavy sugar daddy.' This public attention popularized the terms 'sugar daddy' and 'sugar baby' (or 'heavy sugar baby'), which derived from the use of 'sugar' as slang for money and 'heavy sugar' for large amounts of wealth.

1926- The Oxford English Dictionary attributes the earliest evidence of 'sugar daddy' to a 1926 work by British author Gilbert Frankau titled My Unsentimental Journey. Merriam-Webster also lists the first known use as 1926.

In Nagaland, the term 'Sugar Daddy' seems to have gained popularity post pandemic with other synonyms like Scorpio Uncle, Bolero Uncle and Chini Papa.  It is often used to mock the flamboyant attitude of middle aged men who try to lure young girls or ladies who are way younger than them, by showing off their financial status. It is also used to describe an illicit affair between a rich older man (provider) and a younger woman (receiver).  Although for some it can be a causal term used as a joke or disapproval but it projects the receiver as a 'gold-digger'. On the surface level, we really do not know the kind of relationship the sugar daddy and the sugar baby shares, relationships are complicated and our judgements make it even worse. What I want to say is, we go easy on Sugar Daddies but we are quick in giving moral gyans to Sugar Babies. The gender equivalent of Sugar Daddies is Sugar Mommies, and here we see a reverse, we pass judgements on the provider. No matter the flips, women are harshly judged, they are at the receiving end, always. It is not because women are considered as epitome of virtues and the society expect women to be the flagbearer of morality. Rather it is due to the ingrained misogyny in us. 

Lastly, people in question approach a rumour by releasing a press release, or issue an apology (if needed) or make clarifications through various social media means. However, I am of the opinion that, why give public explanation or clarification for a mere case of Sugar Daddy, when it does not relate with mass scale corruption or damage of public property. Rumour dies quickly especially when it meets the ears of a nonchalant person. To be honest, there are lots of people in our state who have other better works to do then just get entertained by the news of someone's dating life. Let's all chill a bit! 

 

Satanic Worship in Nagaland: Concerning or Just Paranoia

The United States of America has recognized Satanism as a religion. Well, the West's idea of secularism has always been different from India. In India, there has been communal violence, it is not that a particular religion hates the gods or God of the other religion, rather it springs out from the intolerance or hatred towards the community following that religion. Interestingly, when we talk about Satan worship or followers of Satan in Nagaland, the hate is for the god (Satan) they worship, not the followers. The followers are just considered as lost souls. 

Covid 19 pandemic showed the lacuna in the medical facility across the world, poor infrastructure marked by unpreparedness.  If Satanism blooms in Nagaland, does it reflect the weakness or inability of Church in bringing souls closer to Jesus? No!

Religion or preference to worship a particular god or goddess or deity, relies on an individual. It cannot be forced. How long can forced conversion or brainwashing work, after all, at the end of the day, it all comes down to personal experience. 

For any religion to grow, the theoretical foundation should be strong. Nothing offers a bigger basis for understanding its epistemological framework than its holy book.  The Satanic Bible in itself has faced lots of criticism. Founder of Satanism and author of Satanic Bible Anton LaVey has been criticized for plagiarizing sections, and there are various accusations that his philosophies are largely borrowed. Hence, I wonder why Naga youths would blindly follow Satan, when his foremost disciple could not even produce a standard piece of work.   

Maybe, those youths who are fascinated by Satan must have been made to think that they will achieve greatness by believing in Satan. But the truth is, no matter whatever religion one follows, if one does not have the talent, perseverance, hard work or networking and a 'moment of opportunity meets preparedness', then greatness will remain just a word in their lives. 

I am of the opinion that, the discussion surrounding satanic worship in Nagaland is just a mere paranoia and nothing to panic about. No doubt, the church should take measures, if only there is a growing prevalence. But the question should be not, 'What made you choose Satan as your God?' or 'Why did you choose Satan as your God?' or 'How did you end up choosing Satan?',  the question should be, 'Where do you think, you are going to spend your eternity?' Because the answer to this question is marked by opposing views even among the Satanists. 

Charlie Kirk and Billy Graham: How Gen Y and Z Nagas view Them

Charlie Kirk's existence and death was not free from debates, reactions and discussions, around the world. Nagaland was not an exception. In Nagaland, there were two groups, one that admired his speeches and might cherished his legacy. On the other hand, the other group, called out his views, which were often seen as homophobic, transphobic, sexist, regressive, racist, anti-DEI and the list runs wild. However, Charlie Kirk was seen as someone who loved Jesus and projected himself as a person whose foundation was built on Christian faith and values. 

Charlie Kirk might not be so popular among the older Naga generation, but Billy Graham was and still is across Naga generation. No doubt, they belong to two different eras, and Charlie is fit to be a grandson of Billy, age wise. Nonetheless, there are no two opposing views when it comes to Billy Graham, he was loved, liked and admired but same cannot be said about Charlie. When Billy Graham visited Kohima, Nagaland in  November 1972, he brought about inspiring spiritual awakening among Naga Christians. However, if Charlie Kirk was to ever make a campus tour in Nagaland, there could have been some backlash, at least on social media.  

The public perception of Billy Graham and Charlie Kirk differs greatly, and the reasons for this can be attributed to their distinct styles, messages, and historical contexts. Graham's message centered on personal salvation and a direct relationship with God. He appealed to a broad audience by avoiding overly complex theological or political debates. His simple, direct, and energetic preaching style was accessible to millions. Whereas,  Kirk's style is/was often described as aggressive and confrontational. He has been a central figure in the 'culture wars,' using his platform to promote a specific, and often inflammatory, brand of Christian nationalism and right-wing populism.

Billy Graham was known for his personal charisma and a reputation for genuineness and sincerity. He was often described as humble, kind, and without a hint of preening or self-importance. This made him a trusted and respected figure. Unlike Graham, Kirk's work is overtly political. He founded Turning Point USA to mobilize young conservatives and has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. His messaging often includes denouncing political opponents and promoting conspiracy theories.

Graham advised numerous U.S. presidents and engaged with the national discourse. While he had his own political beliefs, he often sought to be a spiritual leader for all, rather than a political partisan. He made efforts to integrate his crusades, a significant step at the time, and was often seen as a force for unity, even if some of his positions on civil rights were criticized by activists like Martin Luther King Jr. for being too moderate.  Kirk has made a number of highly controversial and widely criticized remarks about race, gender, and other social issues. For example, he has been known for promoting the *'Great Replacement Theory,' making disparaging comments about Black public figures, and advocating for specific, conservative social policies.

Lastly, Graham was an early adopter of new media, using radio and television to reach millions. However, he maintained a distance from the 'televangelist' label, particularly as other television preachers became entangled in scandals. His ministry, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, was known for its sophisticated organization and was widely seen as above the fray of financial or personal impropriety. Kirk's career has been built on social media and a style of 'debate' that critics describe as designed to humiliate and provoke, rather than to engage in good-faith discourse. This has led to a reputation for being a polarizing and confrontational figure, which is a stark contrast to the perceived humility of Billy Graham.

Thus, Billy Graham holds respect in the hearts of Naga Millennials and Gen Z, while options are divided when it comes to Charlie Kirk. 

*Great Replacement Theory: Charlie Kirk has been widely criticized for promoting and endorsing versions of the Great Replacement Theory, a white nationalist conspiracy theory that claims there is an intentional plot to diminish or replace the white population with non-white immigrants, particularly in Western countries