Kaka D Iralu
The word “Violence” and its opposite “Non-violence” have been so grossly misused in the context of the Indo-Myanmar-Naga conflict. Now a word as volatile as the word “violence” can be grossly misused, if the context in which it has been used is not carefully studied.
For example if a wild bear attacks my family and I violently react to its attack and stab the bear to death, would I be guilty of violence to the bear? On the other hand, if I had done nothing to protect my family and instead allowed the bear to tear my family to pieces, then can such an act be acclaimed as “A noble non-violent act”?
In the context of the violent Indo-Myanmar-Naga conflict, those Nagas who stood up to defend their families against the grisly attacks of the Indian and Myanmarese bears have been condemned as “The violent villains of the conflict.” On the other hand, those Nagas who ran away from the roaring attacks of the bears and sought refuge in the bear’s dens have been acclaimed as “The non-violent heroes of the conflict.” They have even been acclaimed as the fine gentlemen of Nagaland who are the foundation and even the “Bedrock of Naga Society.”
In the light of these distortions of truth, I would like to ask every Naga this question: “Are those who ran away from the bears, the heroes and those who stood to fight the bears, the villains of present Naga history?” Now, if those who ran away are the “Heroes” then the noble word “Heroism” and the opposite ignoble word “Cowardice” should have no further meaning in Naga society and culture.
This would become the case, because those who stood to fight were very badly mauled; whereas those who fled, found comfort and wealth in the bear’s dens. In fact those who stood to fight were not just physically mauled but even mentally devastated so much so that some of them even went insane from their tortures. For an example read the story of Tsorielie of Mezoma village. Nagaland and India, the blood and the tears, p.329. (Besides Tsorielie, I have also seen many bullet scarred faces and tortured cripples in my research works).
On the other hand, many of those who fled to the bear’s dens are today millionaires in Naga society. Also, in regards to Naga violence against India, much have been said by the Indian Press as well as the State Press about Phizo and the NNC’s violence against India which compelled the Indian army to enter Nagaland in order to restore law and order in Nagaland.
Now, whatever the distortions of historical facts our adversaries may resort to, let every Naga know the actual facts that it was not the NNC but the Indian Government and her army that first resorted to violence and provoked counter violence across the length and breadth of Nagaland. Here remember that on August 27, 1948, it was not the Nagas who fired on the Assam Rifles; but the Assam Rifles who fired on the Nagas and shot to death Asüsü, Modo and Mahrili, when they, along with other thousands of Nagas were on a peaceful march to protest against payment of house tax to the Manipur Government. This peaceful march was staged to affirm that Naga territories did not belong to the Manipur Government or the Indian Government.In this peaceful march, besides the three dead, another four were seriously injured.
Also remember that on October 18, 1952, it was not Zasibeito Nagi who shot the Assam Police officer but the Assam Police officer who shot Zasibeito to death. Zasibeito was shot to death when thousands of Nagas were marching in Kohima town to protest against the brutal beatings of a Sema boy in Dimapur by the Assam Police. As for the accusation of violence against Phizo and the NNC, even as late as December 29, 1951 - that is - after the successful conduct of the Naga National Plebiscite of May 16, 1951, the NNC had even offered the following proposal: “To allay the fears and suspicion of India, Nagas on their part will agree to accept an Indian national to be President of Independent Nagaland for a stated period.”
(Quoted from Phizo’s letter to the Prime Minister of India, dated; December 29, 1951).
In the light of these historical facts, far from starting the violence, Nagas resorted to armed counter attacks on the Indian army only when the Indian army provocations became humanely intolerable. Note the following provocative incidents for example: From 1948, Indian troops had started killing Naga civilians in the Tuensang Division. On November 15, 1954, sixty three villagers of Yongpang village were beheaded which included three top NNC leaders. (This was an Indian instigated attack led by some Pangsha villagers). Again on November 27, 1954, the NNC village of Chingmei was destroyed by bombardment assisted by one battalion of Indian paramilitary forces.
The Indian army further attacked Lenyu, Wei, Changtonyia, Longkhum, Chungtia, Mokokchung, Changlangsü and Chinkhao villages between January and March 1955. Many Naga civilians were killed and also raped in these attacks. As a result, “Self Defence Violence” erupted all over Nagaland from this period onwards.
Therefore, let it never again be said by any Indian historians or their Naga collaborators that the Indian army was called into Nagaland in order to restore law and order over the violence caused by the NNC. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
In conclusion, in any outbreak of violence, it is the aggressor who is guilty of violence. Here the “Self Defender” cannot be condemned as the perpetrator of violence. In other words, it is the BEARS that are guilty of violence and not the father who fought back to defend his family, his home and his land. Also in the present internal factional violence, let every Naga judge who the aggressor is. Let every Naga speak out as to which faction is refusing to offer ceasefire; which faction is refusing to sit down and talk with the other groups and who is attacking who? Let the Naga public know this fact that the one who fights back in “Self defence” is not the aggressor and therefore cannot be accused of indulging in violence against his own brother.
.JPG)
