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

 

The Difference between Half and Step

 I wonder why so many people make mistake when it comes to differentiating between half siblings and step siblings, half brother and step brother, half sister and step sister. Let me break it down for those who use it interchangeably or those you use ‘step’ when it should be ‘half’.

First Example: Arjun Kapoor is Boney Kapoor’s son from his first wife, Janhvi Kapoor is Boney Kapoor’s daughter from his second wife aka Sridevi. So, Arjun Kapoor is Janhvi Kapoor’s? Step brother? Wrong, he is her half brother because they share one of the parents, the parent being Boney Kapoor. I wonder why so many content creators make this mistake when mentioning about Arjun Kapoor and Janhvi Kapoor. 

Second Example: King Charles has two sons namely (like you don’t know) Prince William and Prince Harry), Queen Camilla has a son and a daughter, Tom Parker Bowles and Laura Lopes. William and Harry will be Tom and Laura’s step brothers. Why? Because although the former’s mom is married to the latter’s dad, they don’t share any blood relation through one of the parents. 

Now, that you are aware of the difference, kindly correct those who make such an error. Thank you! 

The Fictional Therapist

Of late, if you are following the YouTube news channels then you must be well aware how the once acclaimed therapist from Nagaland fell from the glory, basically through the receipts.

The matter is still under investigation and the judgement is yet to be pronounced. But, the purpose of this post is not to give the therapist, his 'Catch Me If You Can' moment. This post is to reflect on the gullibility of we, Nagas and why we fall prey even if we are, well, not that dumb. 

There can be several factors but to me there are 3 possible reasons why our people fall for such questionable therapist/ health practitioners:

Lack of Health Literacy/Ignorance: Because a lack of understanding about medical science, disease processes, and what constitutes valid medical qualifications can make individuals susceptible to the misleading claims of quacks. They may not be able to differentiate between evidence-based medicine and pseudoscience

Hope and Belief:  Because the human desire for hope is powerful. Quacks often exploit this by making exaggerated claims of miraculous healing and providing a narrative that appeals to belief systems, sometimes even incorporating religious or spiritual elements. The placebo effect also plays a significant role, where a patient's belief in a treatment, even an inert one, can lead to perceived improvement in symptoms.

Aggressive Marketing: Because quacks often engage in aggressive and misleading advertising, making grand claims that prey on vulnerable groups, such as those with chronic illnesses, weight concerns, or mental health issues.

 I know for us one take away from this incident will be, don't trust anyone blindly, specially when it's a matter of our health and overall well-being. Let me end by quoting the famous lines, "Savdhan rahe satark rahe! "

Why I Chose Blogging Over Vlogging

Way back in 2014, one of my friends suggested me to open a YouTube channel. She thought my contents would be engaging and garner a huge audience. But, the thing was, I simply felt/ feel more comfortable expressing themselves in written form rather than speaking on camera. Moreover, I genuinely enjoy the process of writing, crafting sentences, and expressing complex ideas through text.

Blogging provides a pure outlet for this passion. I had to consider my budget too. Vlogging requires a good camera, microphone, and lighting for quality videos/clips. Uploading a blog post requires a smart phone or a computer and internet access.  Blogging has a very low upfront cost. While personality can through in writing, blogging often places a greater emphasis on the quality and depth of the information itself, rather than the on-screen persona of the creator.

At the end of the day, it is all about your preference and your choice to choose the mode in which you want to connect to the world. I chose blogging and will continue to do so. 

 

The Feathered Headgear: Leadership as an Institution

We have been conditioned to think of politicians when the term, ‘leader’ pops up in a speech or a text. However, in its simplest form, it means, ‘someone who leads’. It can be a Union leader, a Religious leader, Military commander or an Institutional head. Throughout the history and some of the fictional literatures inspired by history, leaders have been divided in two categories, a benevolent leader and a despotic leader. The former receives appreciation but the latter receives condemnation, even after they have passed away. But even a despotic leader has his cult of followers. As a teen, growing up with cable television network installed at home, I had the opportunity to watch Spiderman, there was a line, it goes like this, ‘…with great power comes great responsibility.” Time and again, history has proven the mark of true leadership is having a clear vision. This means, a leader should be a visionary. The one who can calculate the moves and the outcome from the means implied even before the battle has began. 

I grew listening to the stories of valour and honour displayed by the men of our land in defending one’s life, property and liberty. It was not about an individual showcasing such feats but as a team as a collective effort least the sacrifice made by one gets subdued in course of time. Thus, it shaped my understanding of leadership, for me, leadership does not mean a person who leads and make his followers win battles under his command, although this adds credit to the ability of the person in charge. A person who acts as the collective conscience of the people has been appreciated as a good leader but such acts require enormous amount of sacrifice. Sometimes, the bargaining chips are not worth the deal and sometimes the deal is better left unsettled and true leadership needs wisdom to choose the best possible option available considering all the consequences which might follow. 

In the context of Nagaland, if the youngsters were asked, who is/was their favourite leader from the state? Then, most of them will either pick up one of the politicians or a nationalist worker, past or present, dead or living. Although the fact remains, leadership does not confine itself only to the political sphere. Sometimes, fixating the role of leadership only to the people in power, leads to a narrower understanding of leadership, which in a way undermines the role of various people who were/are impeccable in their works. 

Leadership as an institution

In this section, I would like to argue about leadership as an institution and not an acquired skill or behaviour of a person. Institution is a set of rules, norms or laws that has been established over time and which draws its legitimacy from the people who obey and pay reverence to it. When we consider leadership as an institution, we are acknowledging the importance of the institution and negating from shifting the blame of failed governance from an individual to an institution. It makes sense, as by the end of the day, leadership is a collective effort springing from either a linear or a non linear power structure. 

Leadership as an institution recognises a systematic nature; it is not just about a charismatic individual, but a collective capacity and set of practices that are deeply integrated into the fabric of an organization. Institutional leadership is fundamentally about establishing, protecting, and promoting the core values, character, and mission of the institution. It defines, ‘who we are’ and ‘what we stand for’. 

How Leadership Becomes an Institution 

Cultural reinforcement is one of the reasons, as culture evolves to reinforce and sustain the desired leadership behaviours and norms. Also the role of visionary leaders cannot be ignored, for they articulate a clear purpose and set the foundation and actively create and infuse core values into the organization’s structure. Thus, “leadership as an institution” signifies that leadership is not just an individual attribute but a fundamental and enduring aspect of an organization’s design, culture, and operation, ensuring its sustained effectiveness and purpose. 

Through storytelling and shared experiences, a collective narrative and identity are developed, reinforcing the institution’s purpose and values. Additionally, behaviours and practices shape the expected behaviours, norms, and practices within the organization, fostering a culture that supports effective leadership at all levels. The institution becomes a social learning system where the knowledge, wisdom, and leadership approaches are passed down and evolved.