Kaka D. Iralu
Ever since the reconciliation meeting of 29th Feb, several write ups have appeared both in the local papers as well as the Naga Blog pondering as to what it has achieved. Among these write ups, some interesting as well as angry retorts have been expressed by our younger generation in the Naga Blog. Some of them are asking “When they are all supposed to be our freedom fighters, what are they trying to reconcile on?” Others are asking “Let them first reconcile with the Naga public for all the harm they have done to the public in the form of extortion, killing, harassment etc.” Allow me here to present some facts about our history from 1980 to the present so that this younger generation will know where and what had gone wrong in our history.
The present internal political conflict in our land for which many reconciliation meetings have been held is not a religious conflict for which a religious reconciliation is necessary. The conflict is purely a political conflict that needs a political solution. This political conflict started in 1980 when a new government called the NSCN was formed on Jan.31, 1980. The NSCN was formed on the allegation that the NNC and FGN had betrayed the Naga nation through the signing of the Shillong Accord on Nov.11, 1975. This new government was formed from the eastern jungles of Nagaland which had been dissected into Burma. This government was formed after cutting off all communications with the NNC and FGN in the west which were still functioning from the Peace camps. These Peace camps were set up after the signing of the Shillong Accord in order to pursue the third clause of the Shillong Accord which was …”Formulation of other issues for discussion for final settlement.” But while Zazhei Huire-the then President of the FGN had already written back to Governor B.K Nehru on Dec. 30, 1975 clearly expressing his Naga Constitutional restrains and inability to accept clause 1 and 3 of the Shillong Accord and discussions were still going on, a new government was installed in the east after disallowing any national workers from western Nagaland entering into eastern Nagaland or eastern Naga national workers entering into western Nagaland. As a result, except for a few individuals from the Tankhul Sema, Angami, Chakhesang, Ao and Mao tribes along with some eastern Naga tribes, none of the other thousands of national workers and citizens of the othere16 tribes of western Nagaland were ever consulted or even informed about the establishment of this new Socialist Government.
The Naga national struggle from its inception in 1946 had been led by the NNC and FGN up to 1980. After the submission of the Naga memorandum to the Simon Commission in 1929, the NNC was formed on Feb.2, 1946 and the FGN formed on March 22, 1956. Therefore, the Naga national Government up to 1980 was a Federal Republic with a Parliament (Tatar Hoho) and a President leading the Government while the NNC was the political Institution guiding the Government. All these political institutions were established through popular consensus and elections by all the Naga peoples based on the principles of Democracy
However, with the establishment of a new socialist government in 1980, a new political party called the National Socialist Council of Nagalim was installed. Under this new system of governance, drastic changes took place both in political structure and terminology. To give some examples, the President of the government was changed to Chairman and a Collective leadership was installed at the helms of political affairs. Also, under this new government, Central Executive Members of the NNC (CEM) became Central Committee Members (CCM). Former Midan Peyus (Chief Commissioners) of regions were renamed as CAO”s (Central Administrative Officers).The Ministry of Information and Publicity was renamed MIP (Ministry of information and Publicity). The Naga national struggle against invasion was renamed as a ‘Revolution’. Naga soldiers defending our declared independence were renamed ‘Revolutionary Patriots’ and the enemy which was formerly the Burmese and Indian invading troops were renamed ‘Reactionary Forces’ and ‘Counter Revolutionaries’ which included even Nagas who opposed the Party’s political ideology.
All these drastic changes brought total mayhem and confusions into the ranks and files of the national workers who were mostly un-educated. The confusion was more so for the many villagers of eastern Nagaland who had nothing to do with the Shillong Accord. In our long history of resistance, as the war dragged on for more then twenty years (1954-1970’s) and our hiding places in western Nagaland were destroyed, our soldiers and civil workers of the NNC and FGN had been increasingly taking refuge in the eastern jungles. And despite their poverty, our eastern brothers and sisters had been sharing their meager food with their counterparts from the western sector. Suddenly these villagers were told to forsake the NNC and FGN and join the NSCN.
Inevitably, a new war-this time not with Burma and India- but among fellow Nagas broke out. Very soon many Naga villages were burning and thousands of innocent Naga villagers started to die from bullets, starvation and diseases when their villages were burned to ashes by the NSCN. In the counter retaliation, many of the brave soldiers of the NSCN-educated and in their prime- also perished from the violence that engulfed the whole eastern sector of our land. By the early 1980’s this fratricidal killings spilled over into the western sector too and the death toll and brutality began to steadily increase in numbers and horror. Today, the total death toll from this internal political conflict stands at over 3000 souls.
As for a political reconciliation to this internal problem, there seems to be no meeting point. This is because Socialism and Democracy are based on two entirely different political and philosophical premises. Democracy on the one hand is grounded on the premise that it is the government of the people by the people and for the people based on the rule of law. It further assumes that behind the law is the Law Giver who is God who has created man in his image with equal rights to his laws of freedom, liberty, equality and justice. Socialism on the other hand is based on Karl Marx’s concept of human history. Karl Marx propounded the theory that the nature of human society and politics is a history of class struggle. In this class struggle, the working classes which he calls the “Proletariat” are fighting against the owners of the means of production which he calls the “Capitalists.” In this historical class struggle, he further predicted that the Proletariat would ultimately overthrow the Capitalist through a “Revolution. This victory of the working classes against the Capitalist will ultimately usher in a classless society of socialism and communism where each citizen will give to the state according to his ability and receive back from the state according to his need. The state here means the political party that controls the affairs of the socialist or communist state.
To further elaborate on the differences between Socialism and Democracy, in democracy, land belongs to the people as private property. These private lands can be acquired for public utility through law by paying compensations to the land owners. But in socialism, land belongs to the state. Again in democracy, leaders are elected by the people through the electoral process. These leaders can also be removed (Impeached) from office by the people, if the leaders fail in their public duties to the people. In socialism, the leaders appoint themselves and impose their collective will on the people and can even kill their political opponents as ‘reactionary forces’ if the opponents disagree with their collective policies.
This Marxist theory of class struggle had its roots in Europe-especially England- where the Industrial Revolution in the 1840’s was making the capitalist richer and richer while the working classes were reduced to poverty. Marx was influenced by Hegel’s theory of synthesis and Rousseau’s theory of man being born free but enchained every where by society’s ruling systems. This theory of human history propounded by Marx and Engels and variously interpreted and imposed by Lenin, Stalin and others, eventually affected the whole of Europe in the 19th century and many other parts of the world in the 20th century.
Now all these man made theories are based on atheistic philosophic thinkers who think they are the final authority in the universe. Their complex intellectual theories can be understood only by intelligent college and university students well versed in political science, sociology and philosophy.
In the light of these facts, to import such a political ideology from Europe into war torn Nagaland and try to impose it on any un-educated Naga villager in the east or west is altogether an unthinkable proposition. In my opinion it is a historical and political blunder of the highest order. Such an experiment can only end in a bloody civil war, as has happened in Nagaland today.
Conclusion: Any political system including Democracy can be grossly misused by those in power unless a very alert public checks them. Also in a secular democracy, a socialist or communist political party can exist within that democracy and even come to power through the electoral process. However because of the above stated differences, in my humble opinion, a reconciliation between Democracy and Socialism is impossible. They cannot even co-exist as a coalition government or two governments of a people. The case is one of “If one is to exist, the other must exit.” Now, since the people of a nation are the supreme and final authority to choose the form of government they want, our national leaders should give the Naga people the opportunity to decide through a national referendum or some other forms of electoral process, the kind of political system they desire.
