Breaking News | Latest News | Current News | Nagaland News - MorungExpress.com: The Naga internal Problem  The Subalterns begin to speak   

The Naga internal Problem  The Subalterns begin to speak
================================================================================
K.Toshinaro Longchar  on September 05, 2008 02:10:00
 
“If I joyfully spend the rest of my life, of my powers, of my energies in
demanding justice, but without hatred, without armed violence, through
liberating moral pressure, through truth and love, it is because I am convinced
that only love is constructive and strong…”*
I. Introduction
Nagas have an amazing history of folklore, customary practices, a unique
structural and territorial village administration, and historical resistance to
any  colonial occupation. Naga ‘modern’ history however had been eclipsed by
Indian armed operation, specifically deployed to break the basis of Naga
people-hood and its self-determination. Nagas collectively endured political
violence under the hands of the GoI (Government of India) simply because they
were Nagas. Because they envisioned and endorsed a separate political identity
outside of the Indian Union. Naga history is one of suffering, state violence
and a continuous struggle for survival against assimilation, against division
and against exploitation. In typical imperial attitude, our forefathers might
have been stereotyped as ‘backward’ and ‘junglees’ (forest people) but
they clearly recognized and articulated that if they joined the new Union, they
would be rendered landless, lose their identity and cultural practices to a far
more dominant political and cultural power. So began the epic journey of our
nation-making. Such was the foresight and materials that made the history of our
nation, that it is heartbreaking, but swells our heart with pride and dignity to
be a Naga all the same.
The legal basis for Naga political struggle are: the 1929 Memorandum; symbolic
declaration of Naga Independence, 1947; NNC Official declaration that Nagas do
not endorse and accept the Indian state Constitution, 1950;  the Plebiscite,
1951;  the  “total  non-participation”** in the first  ever general
democratic election of the Indian Union,  1952. Naga movement was a people’s
movement.  The freedom fighters were the heroes, the martyrs.  The struggle was
the peoples hope. It inspired fraternity, and held the unity and pride of the
Nagas.  The national cause of the Nagas is as legitimate as it was when it
started  around the  1920s.
But today it tells a different story. Naga people, particularly the young, the
very backbone of the society are turning their back on the Naga political
struggle because of the factional divisions, the rampant extortions and killing.
The vicious cycle of violence that rationalized structural violence and killing
as ‘just’ has created a culture of fear that has aggravated hatred,
division, and brought extensive poverty and suffering. Taking a position: 
‘Uncomfortable, like truth, Demanding, like justice’
The need of the hour is Unity, Peace, Healing, and Reconciliation, as rightly
pointed out and called for by the civil society and the Church, including the
conflicting factions, which is very telling of Naga society.
The purpose of this writing is not to give a historical nor a political
analysis of the Naga struggle. Rather it is to briefly refocus the lenses on the
present Naga socio-political situation. It is to critically question ourselves
of what is becoming of our people as a nation. Yes, the role and involvement of
GoI as a major divisive political power in the Naga struggle is undeniable. But
GoI cannot make us a nation, nor can it break us as a nation.  These are
questions Nagas need to answer themselves. And it is in articulating these
questions that the fears, suffering, and aspirations of the ‘Subaltern’
within the location of a Naga ‘Subaltern’ that it hopes to give a voice.
II The  Subalterns of Nagaland begin to Speak…
(i) On Political Structure: The beginning of Faction in the Struggle
Primordial understanding of ethnicity has promoted Naga nationalism and
nation-making. What is missing however is the lack of recognition or relegation
of any common vital interests over resources, distribution of power etc.  These
crucial issues are becoming taboo in Naga politics. They are instead silenced
and digressed by some dominant group either in the form of a tribe, faction or
an elitist group, only to give birth to a reactionary political separatism
within Naga nation-making.  ‘National movement’ had been divided by serious
factional rivalries and violence. Tribal separatism rather than integration is
becoming a serious challenge. This vicious cycle of reactions seem to have
become the only justified way of Naga politics. From NNC to the eventual
formation of NSCN, - later split between the NSCN (K), the NSCN (IM) and NSCN
(Unification) as the latest split.
But an objective reading sheds light on the fact that a relationship of
‘exclusivity’ might have developed unconsciously or consciously within the
NNC. This has continued within the Naga factions today. The problem when a group
becomes dominant and exclusive is that it justifies a sense of ownership,
control and leadership over the political power and positions which otherwise
should be inclusive of all groups and people.  This naturally leads to
suspicion, anger and enmity that spin into violent encounters. This can further
lead to political reaction, in the sense that a reactionary group can be formed
and collaborate with other non-dominant groups who are at the receiving end of
the dominant dictates. The political reactions of the non-dominant groups are
justifiable. The problem however with such political domination and reaction is
that it can take on sectarian or tribal tendencies. It can also lead to a mind
set of ‘them’ and ‘us’.
That is why, while at the core of the Naga cause is her struggle against the
Indian hegemony. The escalating conflict between Naga factions as a result is
more pressing. Without facilitating dialogue between all the conflicting
parties, it is not feasible to negotiate with GoI towards any political
arrangement. A productive dialogue between the conflicting Naga parties can be
possible when issues around interest, power and resource sharing and
decision-making are transparently and objectively address. Therefore a
‘political structure’ inclusive of every tribe and political group for equal
representation is urgently required. If Nagas do not address these basic issues
they have not yet seen the last of further splits in the Naga national movement.
There is a danger that it can become regional- Eastern Nagas, Western Nagas,
Southern Nagas and Northern Nagas.
( ii) On Integration:  Territory , Socio-cultural  and Psychological
Territorial negotiation is, and will be one of the biggest issues not only in
Indo-Naga arrangements but also among the Nagas. Territorial legitimacy is the
basis of any nation formation.  If negotiations are to make some headway,  then 
territorial re-aligning of the Nagas,  re- drawing the  colonial boundaries  of 
the Indian Union  and  some ‘space’ of Naga territory outside ‘Nagaland
state’, without delaying a workable political arrangement of  Nagas, can be on
the cards. This prospect must include every Naga tribes with their traditional
territory in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur. For this reason the
territorial integration of all Nagas under one  political unit, and the
‘settlement’ of ‘potential’ Nagas who ‘may’ be displaced in a
‘bargaining’ process need to be  transparently deliberated.
Land, in our Naga context does not belong to the State. It belongs to a village
and the tribe. It is not easy to give to ‘Others’, other than our own (tribe
and village), and it takes a lot of ‘culture-ness’ to recognize rightful
ownership, than to restore a terra nullius rationale to control and occupy the
land.  In such a threshold, a code of sharing  natural resources, that includes
land;  respect and recognition of ownership when ‘settlement are
accommodate’ are  the basis for mutual co-existence among the Nagas . This
code is not foreign to Naga culture. In fact it is the core of our village
epistemology.
Nagaland ‘state’ having a majority Naga population should  become the
‘inclusive base’  to once again ‘re-imagine’, ‘re-construct’, and
‘re-think’  their  vision,  and political action. So far such an open
dialogue could not be deliberated mainly because of two interrelated but
contradicting causes:
(i)Firstly, Nagas in Nagaland state despite the struggle with the Indian
hegemony, are “comfortable” in the federal arrangement, and the
opportunities that come along with ‘statehood’ particularly for the
‘advantaged, so call ‘advanced tribes’( Angamis, Aos, Lothas and Semas).
(ii) Secondly, ‘fears of all of the Nagas outside of Nagaland state’ to be
‘overlooked’ by ‘Nagas within the state’ in the event of a political
arrangement is strongly expressed by the case of the Tangkuls. Theirs is an
assertion that they should not be ‘treated as outside political back-ups, but
as equals.’ There are also  many non-dominant tribes in the same position  who
cannot mobilize a political voice for themselves.  In such a political play,
various major tribes in Nagaland state have ‘sought alliance’ with the
Tangkuls to reassert their claim for leadership, and control in the Naga
political struggle to ‘overpower potential rivals’. Nonetheless such
alliances have seen further division in Naga struggle because though it is an
aspiration for equality and recognition, it has rather translated into a
struggle for power and domination at the expense of Naga cause.
The point is, Nagas in Nagaland state should acknowledge  the legitimate rights
of the Nagas outside Nagaland state as any Naga citizen  with equal
opportunities in every political decision and ‘agenda deliberation’. Nagas,
outside Nagaland  state should also appreciate the fears of the Nagas in
Nagaland state in  sharing the ‘opportunities’,  their ‘comfort zone’
and ‘space’  when approached with an aggressive drive of violence and threat
which is ignited by the fear of the ‘Other’. The political structure to
accommodate all the respective Naga tribes so that structural violence and
unwarranted fears can be replaced is required. Smaller tribes who had been
excluded, and therefore lacked the political opportunities in decision-making
can no longer  be sidelined. This is the only way forward.
Territorial integration of the Nagas cannot guarantee solidarity, nor cessation
of direct and structural violence. Therefore while facilitating dialogue between
the contesting factional groups, the Church as a moral body  and  civil society
should engage to remove structural  inequality in Naga society among different
social groupings, i.e., faction, tribe, region etc. Besides territorial
integration, socio-cultural and psychological integration of these grouping
through various inter-tribal interactions are important. The Church can become a
key platform, particularly Christians in Kohima and Dimapur.
Pressure should be mounted in our education system so that the ‘image’,
myth and legends of the ‘Other Nagas tribe’ other than their own, overarched
by nation-making themes and critiques be introduced. Narrations and introduction
 of modern Naga cultural and political history is urgently needed.
Who is deciding ‘who is a Naga’, for that matter is another issue Nagas
have yet to deal with. The political suffering of the Nagas Burma needed to be
highlighted, debated and deliberated. But one thing that is very clear is that
unless a form of cohesive understanding is realistically envisioned within the
Nagas in ‘Indian Union’ the political position of the Nagas in Burma will
continue to be weak and suffer.
(iii) On Asymmetrical relationships:Domination and Power
Nagas must wake up to the inequality existing in the social spectrum. Peaceful
co-existence cannot be envisioned without waking up to this reality. Political
questions  within the  Naga context  mean the power of domination which is
usually based on an asymmetrical or an over-powering and controlling 
relationship.  The prophetic voice of the Church  must overcome this   polarity
amongst different political factions. For peace to be feasible a process of
delivering justice that channels reconciliation is required. Justice here is the
equality of all groups with equal representation and rights. This provides us
with two main challenges:
(i) historical,  or contemporary  domination of one faction/tribe  need to
recognize the rights and equality of the other factions/tribes.
(ii) the other factions/tribes cannot exclude the tribal/faction identity of
the dominant group while excluding the domination of the group.
In other words it implies that peace demands conflicting factions  not
necessarily a  uniformity, but a willingness to engage their differences through
dialogue and active  participation. This becomes possible only when the
conflicting parties accept each other as equals in their negotiations and
refrain from claims of ‘superiority’, over knowledge and skill resources,
armed cadres, and social power. In such a protracted conflict like in Nagaland,
any process of dialogue between warring factions cannot be selective nor be 
based on the legitimacy of majority. Majority rights have a tendency to exclude
the minorities,  and smaller tribes.
(iv) On Unity
Statements like ‘independence’, ‘sovereignty’, and ‘autonomy’ are
not enough to conductively unify and solve the Naga problem. Not because they
are irrelevant but because they are all contested, debatable and sometimes
rhetorical statements. Today Nagas are fighting against the Indian state
politics of domination and homogenization. If Naga politics wants to be a moral
force, it should be the opposite of such polity. The basis of Naga unity
therefore should take into consideration the following:
(i) Recognize the historical injustice and ‘legitimate’ grievances of less
dominant tribes who have so far lacked political power.
(ii) Members of dominant tribes particularly the Angamis, Aos, Lothas, Semas,
Tangkhuls must acknowledge the fact that they share collective responsibility in
 inflicting grievance to the other tribes. Call for unity, peace and
reconciliation cannot truly begin without giving up the politics of domination
and their competitive attempts to centralize Naga politics in and through their
respective tribes, faction and ideology.
(iii) Such approach will enable dialogue and encourage members of both sides to
acknowledge the fact that there are ‘victims ’ even within the dominant
group. This will also  allow  the ‘victimized’ tribes to also see that,  
they themselves cannot be fully exploited if a section of their own people, or
elitist from the ‘non-dominant’ group  do not collaborate with the elite of
the dominant tribes or groups.
(iv) This process is important so that mobilization  and division is no longer
along tribal lines but against corruption and exploitation, against domination
and power abuse .
(v) Develop a political structure based on inclusiveness and a strong ideology
based on the respective belief system of all the Naga tribe. Some of the crucial
beliefs here are the eco-human reality of Naga traditional spirituality which
should be translated and connected in our relationship with nature, justice  and
land, and Christian ethical beliefs on accountability and justice.
(v) On changing Naga demographic profile
Nagas have come to a point in history where the changing demographic profile of
Naga society cannot be shelved off. The immigrants both documented or
undocumented, are coming from a different socio-political situation to form
another challenging  situation in the Naga context. The hybridity of  Nagas with
the immigrants,  particularly the Muslims is a social reality. The fact of the
matter is that it is here to stay. Random ‘permit checking’ drive is no
longer enough. It will not solve the problem either. A deliberate conscious
education, awareness and concrete policy not only by governmental measures but
coming from the core of the Naga political struggle  is important.  Nagas can 
demand - a Nagaland exclusively  for ‘pure’ Nagas. Such demand and drive are
justifiable when Nagas themselves are forced towards assimilation by mainstream
Indian policy. But to solely focus on the ‘purity’ of Nagaland for Nagas is
to overlook the crucial internal  structural mechanism of dependency that is
prevailing within Nagas. In other words the sole dependency on GoI economic
incentives and employment have developed a lack of ownership and accountability
over their resources, i.e. land, cultivation, human resources etc. The action of
various Naga state politicians in  buying votes, and scrambling over immigrants
(ineligible)  as ‘vote banks’  is not only a violation on the ethical issue
of  ‘pure democracy’ Naga politicians themselves so passionately eulogized,
but on human manipulation.
Leaders from village, tribe and collective Nagas must seriously deliberate the
rights of community land of the village with a political will so that villagers
are not rendered landless. Traditional and customary oral law is not enough.  We
need to develop and codify them for the interest of the people who are most
vulnerable to the present socio-economic and political changes.
Why are the Naga villagers heavily indebted to “undocumented immigrant
shopkeepers”? Why have the villagers come to a condition where they have to
sell their land, their livelihood, to rich (unaccounted money) Naga ‘tycoon’
to avail basic education and health care? Where have the resources of the
village, and the funding for  village development disappeared? Naga political
identity starts from the territorial village, but the space that holds that
identity, ( i. e. the territorial village ) is shrinking to individual
landholding.  This is a clear indication towards a direction where  the most
vulnerable villagers are working as laborers in the large landholders’
‘plantation’.
A movement and resolution from every Naga family that ‘imported food
commodity’ which can be grown in Nagaland will be allowed into ‘Naga kitchen
food table’ would be timely. Advanced machinery and cash crops should be
introduced. In other words we need a ‘green revolution.’ On the other hand
we also need to develop  a culture where  ethical entrepreneurial  skills and 
mass production are encouraged,  without which the rhetoric of  industrial  and
technological development in Nagaland will be a far cry.
When this consciousness develops among every Naga then the issue of immigrants
can be addressed in a more humane and a just way. This is not only an economic
drive but a re-invention of Naga socio-political and cultural mechanisms for
survival.  It is a sounding declaration of our self-determination for
‘independence’. Without this substance, the slogans are naught. Nagas need
to envisage creative but ethical imagination to construct the place of hybridity
and immigrants within the Naga political identity whether we like it or not.
(vi) On Christianity
In this Christian dominated Naga nation, Nagas must be challenged to develop a
theology that espouses beyond physical church construction, attendance, and
building. It should develop a clear theology on justice, respect, ownership,
recognition, integration,  and sharing. It should advocate an action of
non-violence that comes out of strong ethical Christians principles. A theology
of love that is so strong that it disarms the hatred between perceived enemies
and enables each other- once again-to see as brothers and sisters; so committed
that it prompts the wrongs to be put right; the broken to be restored. A
theology that unceasingly seeks to fight for freedom and equality that in its
strength the chains of bondage and suppression break under the moral agent of
truth, love and non-violence.
Naga identity in relation to each tribe in recognizing not only the
commonalities but also the differences is imperative. Naga Christianity should
interpret Naga cultural heritage, as well as critiquing traditional practices
that needs to be redefined to be relevant.  Church should be a  platform for the
poor, powerless and the weak,  the position of women and the vulnerable in
society. The Church should interpret biblical relevance to the suffering of the
Nagas in the wider  picture of  colonial-imperial dimension,  ‘Judean
Elites’ rivalries  and its consequences to the Israelite history.
But calling for non-violence, peace and reconciliation cannot be workable
without addressing the structural mechanism for violence. Non-violence is more
than renouncing and condemning the act of direct violence. It goes more than
appeals. It needs a position because at its’ core, non-violent action is a
struggle against unjust structural powers. To directly involve in the
bureaucracy of the Government is not the domain of the Church. But to expose
corruption and impose moral pressure on the bureaucratic system that marginalize
and exploit the smaller tribes and villages, the illiterate and the poor, the
excluded people in society, so they can be empowered in the process  is not 
only the  role of the institutional  Church, but the heart of practical
Christianity.  The Church must give voice to the many subalterns existing within
the subaltern Naga nation.
III  Conclusion:
Nation-building and peace-building calls for a position which is not always
comfortable because it shakes the socio-political  status quo- both internally
and externally. Buffered along the frontiers of India, China and Burma the
challenges before the Nagas seem insurmountable. But I believe the destiny of
any nation- big and small is in the hands of God. This gives us courage. But
this also challenges all the Nagas irrespective of political affiliation to
reflect and follow the fundamental commandant of God –‘ Thou shall not
kill’.  No matter how legitimate our political cause or justified our personal
vengeance- it cannot overrule the commandment against bloodshed. There is
nothing as ‘just killing’. Even ‘just war’ parameters are under scrutiny
for alternative methods. Nagas can begin to develop an alternative method to
aspire for our ‘just cause.’
Because of the power of truth, love and non-violence, even in the light of
intractable conflict found within Nagaland and in the face of large-scale
cultural and structural power of Indian Union; Nagas can work tirelessly with
hope and vision. Because of this we can believe that Nagas with all the
different tribes - with different languages, customs, temperament and political
groupings be able to live together side by side as a nation, as brothers and
sisters.  We can also live as neighbors with India- as an independent
nation-state or with greater autonomy with the federal system of GoI.
The political rhetoric in Naga discourses that they are a classless society and
therefore inequality does not exist, is no longer correct. Various interests and
agendas are there.  Elite competition and exploitation  exists. Inequality is
growing.  Division in terms of economic and political power is increasing. But
the traditional ethos of egalitarianism unfortunately, in a very changed
socio-economic and political situation, is no longer in practice, though the
essence remains. But the presence of this essence, even in the absence, is
manifested in the Naga peoples struggle and believe in equality, freedom and
desire for justice.
Even as I write critically on the subject of evolving Naga politics of power
and domination it is to the senses of Naga egalitarianism,  of justice and
equality that I appeal to.  I strongly believe is it alive in our national
character and will lead each and every member of the Nagas to fight against
poverty, and freedom from fear of domination and suppression.
* Helder, Camara, Spiral of Violence, 1971. Ibid, the line: ‘Uncomfortable,
like truth, Demanding, like justice.’
** I owe this term ‘total non-participation’ in understanding within a Naga
context for this particular point in Naga history to Prof. Kolezo Chase.
The author can be contacted at
< toshinaro.longchar@gmail.com>