Seemingly everyone, every organization and every authority had construed that the eventful home coming of the collective leadership of Isaac and Muivah, in the year 2005 would be the last lap of honour for the Nagas, winding the marathon ceasefire (up) between the NSCN (IM) and the Government of India (GoI). Days and months prior to this the GoI, purported to have recognized the “uniqueness of the history and situation” of the Nagas (the basis for holding talks in India) impressed upon the Nagas that with every round of talks (over 50) the two talking parties were coming closer and better in understanding towards a settlement which would be acceptable, honourable and lasting at the same time.
Ironically, the highfaluting “moving in the right direction” has proved to become a conspicuous cul-de-sac, where the GoI has exasperated it counterpart, the NSCN (IM) by retreating from the erstwhile position of “unconditional” to that of “political consensus (by Vajpayee) and “states’ consent” (by Manmohan) viz-a-viz Greater Nagaland. And one after another the two Naga leaders sadly left India, of course without shunting future provision for continued dialogue. The riddle of politics played by the GoI appears childish in the sense that while it has outrightly rejected the NSCN (IM)’s demand of third party mediation the former is insisting on the ‘political consensus’ or ‘states’ consent’ of the neighbouring states. If opinion of a third party is considered vitally important or inevitable for solution to a long standing issue, the NSCN (IM) should have also been given ample opportunity to involve a third party mediation.
The essence of democracy is ‘people’s will’ or what is called ‘general will’ (Rousseau) or ‘rational will’ (Hegel) which becomes the ultimate authority in determining the history and destiny of even those who disagree. Precisely in our context if the Naga populace, as projected by the civil societies, has given its collective mandate and if the popularly elected State Govt. (DAN) has offered to step down (salient feature of the Common Minimum Programme) in the advent of a settlement reached between the NSCN (IM) and the GoI, shouldn’t any settlement made, be it within or without the Indian Union or Constitution be accepted by the Nagas with honour?
There are of course other sections (not factions) of the Naga community whose dissenting opinion is least regarded as considerable to the peace process and talk. Rather their opinion is largely painted as anti thetical to the cause of the Nagas in general. Let us reason for once and judge whether this has any basis and legitimacy. First, that any future settlement short of sovereignty, for which the Nagas have struggled so long and sacrificed so much, will not be as honourable as we are made to believe today. Secondly, the unwillingness on the part of the factions to include, or get involved in the political talk jointly do not appear convincing that the anticipatory settlement will be lasting or final as we wish.
Thirdly, if negotiation is centred around integration, physical integration of some Nagas and physical disintegration of the other Nagas may not be acceptable as we assume. I, for one believe that what is honourable will be acceptable, but what is acceptable may not be honourable and what is honourable may not be acceptable. This by no means suggests that what is acceptable, if not honourable should be rejected as well.
The homecoming of the collective leadership, after many years of lobbying global support for Nagas’ political right for sovereignty in foreign lands drove (or rather brought) home the fact propagated by many of different authority that ‘Naga solution does not lie outside but within ourselves’. When thousands of Nagas had welcomed and rallied behind the peace process and talks between the NSCN (IM) and GoI, it was a clear manifestation and expression of the Naga people’s craving desire for lasting peace and meaningful settlement. Unfortunately, the universal longing for peace is misconstrued by many as an act of supporting one faction only.
The peace process which is prevailing in the state is not the achievement of any warring faction but it is basically the crying and moaning of the Naga people against bloodshed and hatred which has brought at least one faction to talking term. But when factions do not value peace there inevitably lies the danger of converting the desired ‘peace’ to ‘pieces’. There is a natural order of equally strong opposite force against any moving object, so is it not then logical to pre-opt for a unified and wholistic approach on a vital issue which will affect every Naga? In the present situation this is not forthcoming. Is it because of our political arrogance or ignorance of political reality? If it is true that Naga solution lies within ourselves it can be more true that its dissolution will lie within ourselves. History, more often that no, repeats itself, as is evident in the past.
There are serious allegation and denial that the State Govt. (DAN) has belied the professed principle of ‘equi-closeness’ (with all factions) and has become a partisan facilitator of one faction only and that it has allowed a parallel govt. to rule the state. Also that the civil societies have become pseudo-frontal organization of the same faction betraying the trust thrust upon them by the common people. It is not wrong for the State Govt. and civil societies to extend their full support to the NSCN (IM) because the latter is the only faction negotiating with the GoI. But it is wrong for them to take a stand of “let us not encourage or involve them” (other factions) or the attitude of “they are immaterial and not a factor.” One need not be a faction supporter or critic to visualize possible consequence of an agreement made not only because of non-participation but more so because of vehement opposition against it. It may be easier to sign an agreement than to actually respect it. It may also be more easier to talk of the agreement than to actually talk about its ramification. Nagas have had similar experiences with the 16th Point Agreement and Shillong Accord, not that the anticipatory agreement will also become the same.
Of course, in a peculiar situation like ours it is not important as to how much we know and parrot it idly but it is more important as to how we are tackling the given situation, how much we are doing and upto what level. We cannot simply sleep over the situation and expect to wake up one bright morning to find everything set like the golden touch of Midas. What we claim we must show our ability, activity and dynamism to the world.
Personally, I feel that the 16th Point Agreement was a good agreement for reason only that we have had enjoyed most provisions of the special status (as embodied in Art 371 (A) of the Indian Constitution) above other states for more than four decades. But all along these years the agreement has been regarded or rather discarded by many as a sell-out of the Naga political right and a humiliating submission to the supremacy of the neo-colonist India. There are people who do not want to talk about it or even make a casual reference where necessity arises.
It is understood that (1) for those who advocate sovereignty the agreement has no significance, (2) for those who think that the agreement has only benefited the Nagas of Nagaland State, it has no meaning to the Nagas outside state, and (3) for the nature under which the agreement was signed between some section of the Nagas and the GoI. In other words, the disputed agreement was neither signed in the manner the 1951 Plebiscite was conducted nor had it received the popular mandate of the civil societies and the State Govt., as is now given to the negotiating faction. Otherwise given some considerable thought and respect to the agreement the unfulfilled provision of integrating the Naga contiguous areas could have been realized much earlier and the abrogated provision of a place under the External Affairs Ministry could have been reverted to its original position, whereby we could be having a separate constitution of our own by now. But going by the logic of mandate we have preferred to regard the agreement as dishonourable, unworthy of acceptance.
But today we are talking of the same integration claiming it as a birth right and we are willing to kill or get killed on war footing. However, if by integration we want to make it acceptable and lasting settlement, we must first reconsider the attitude of exclusiveness and political rigidity by seriously addressing the division of the Nagas into factions, tribes and regions before and not after any settlement is made. Sovereignty was always the bargaining point on the basis of which the 9th Point Hydari Agreement, the 16th Point Agreement and Shillong Accord were signed but on all accounts the actual settlement points fell short of the bargaining point. This was mainly because some signed and some supported but the other opposed. If the anticipatory agreement is similarly done and opposed it may end up in the same manner. The question then is how many times will we sign agreement with the GoI? Or how many agreements will the GoI be willing to sign with different Naga groups?
And our history is built on mass and united movement for sovereignty. But today we are no more united; somebody justifies the status quo, somebody wants integration while somebody still want sovereignty. Coincidentally, it is not in the desire of India to see unified Nagas, something which cannot be suppressed forever, and the situation under which the Nagas are split by divisive forces give ample scope to the GoI to dilly dally the matter in hand.
Perhaps what is of utmost urgency to the teetering Naga race right now and not later, is reconciliation amongst the warring factions and not that of partial integration or not even full sovereignty. If a divided and unreconciled Naga cannot even get integration that easy how can we except sovereignty? Every Naga wants a solution but when Nagas remain divided integration cannot be a solution and sovereignty is a far-fetched dream. Perhaps there are some sensible people who think that unity and reconciliation are prior and must precede integration of sovereignty and not the other way round. Several attempts in the past have failed to reconcile the warring factions but it is not good enough to simply say “they have failed. More pertinent is to ask and review “why have they failed?”
Reconciliation, in broad terms is an act or process in which two groups of people, who are opposed to each other are successfully brought together so that they are in agreement. In Biblical term, it simply means forgiveness, which is not alien to Christianity. But when the opposing groups cannot reconcile on their own, for instance the GoI is talking of states’ consent and the NSCN (IM) is talking of third party mediation. Jesus represent reconciliation (between God and man) in human form.
Now who is to reconcile the warring factions? Isn’t it the public, the church, the civil societies and the state government? But if the whole bunch of these sided with one or other faction(s), who will be left alone to do the dirty job? At the same time neither of the two opposing groups has the right or can be right in detecting terms and conditions upon the other ones who are doing the act of reconciliation or forgiveness. Full liberty and authority should be given to the ones who have initiated the process of reconciliation and the belligerent factions should come to terms with it even though it may appear embarrassing or unpleasant. That is if they want to redeem the uniqueness of the Naga history and situation.
Otherwise, perhaps the Nagas deserve a respite from the present political chaos created by factional differences, after all it is going to be the Naga public (not the factions) who will eventually chant:
Oh! The lives we lost
The blood we shed
The ears we cried
The years we wasted
The wealth we sacrificed
The dream we dreamt, and
The prayer we prayed.
Remember no force on earth, no matter how powerful it may be, can suppress the Nagas from the right to be free, if it is God’s will but no force on its own, no matter how strong it may be, can free the Nagas, if it is against God’s will.
Vaprumu Demo
Social worker, Kohima
