Apropos an article circulating in social media under title "The Rise and fall of Th Muivah in Nagaland" by Hotovi Sema, dated 27/08/2020, wherein mention was made and we quote the para, "There have been two parallel groups in NNC - one group led by T Sakhrie supporting Naga solution under the constitution and the other, the group led by hard-core Phizo dreaming complete secession of Nagaland from the country".
Whereas, T Sakhrie was indeed a founder-pioneer of NNC in 1946 and the leading architect of the Naga freedom movement whose intellectual inputs did propel the Naga movement to a high pedestal at the time. And whereas, it was indeed true that there occurred a division in the NNC during that time.
We, his Clansmen, however, herewith seek to clarify that T Sakhrie, at no point of time whatsoever, supported any Naga solution under "the constitution" which in the context of the said article is a reference to the constitution of India. To the contrary, T Sakhrie was among the first Naga patriots to envision and promote a free Naga Nation with self rule to which end he struggled, authored numerous memoranda to the British empire and relentlessly pursued for detachment of Naga country from India over which he knew the British would soon relinquish its colonial hold, and who ultimately sacrificed his life only to become the first high profile victim of political assassination in the Naga revolution.
Authoring one of the earliest Memoranda, instead of embracing Indian constitution, we see him detesting an alien constitution when he wrote to His Majesty's Government (HMG) and the British-India Government (quote), 'A constitution drawn by the people who have no knowledge of the Naga Hills and the Naga people will be quite unsuitable and unacceptable to the Naga people" (Memorandum of The Case of The Naga People for Self-Determination and an Appeal to HMG and the Government of India, 20th February, 1947).
Therefore, this clarification is to put the matter in its true perspective concerning T Sakhrie's pioneering sacrifice in the Naga freedom movement. It is also pertinent to touch upon contemporary events albeit so very briefly, to set the records straight.
Truly a man ahead of his time, few people understood the lofty ideals set by T Sakhrie in his day which he meant for the good of the Nagas. During the heat of the movement he nonetheless expressed his conviction that the Nagas were then too young to wage war against a India whose prowess was on the rise and that it was so vital for the Naga people to first be educated, learn to live united, build semblance of an economy, stand on their own legs and progress in a graded manner to fulfil their patriotic dreams. This was why he objected to the violent methods of war with India being contemplated by the rival Phizo camp. Sakhrie instead proposed a non-violent democratic process of achieving the Naga dream foreseeing that a violent method meant bloodshed and is a sure disaster which would cost the Nagas heavily. This was when he favoured a time-bound guardianship home-rule during the transition of British-India administration, the idea being that the Nagas will have the freedom to choose self-rule at a specified period of time. This very idea was reflected in the 9-Point Hydari Agreement of June 1947 which he drafted only to be unilaterally abrogated later by India. Thus Sakhrie's guardianship posture gave leverage to the rival camp to propagate and malign this advocate anon-violence as an agent of the enemy which ultimately cost him his tile two days allot he was abducted on I 8th January, 1956 and tortured to death. For the record however, the murder or T Sakhrie and the festering wounds of 50 years of inter-clan/ familial hostility and bitterness was Put to rest during the 50th Memorial Anniversary of Sakhrie in the year 2006 at Khonoma.
Speaking of guardianship, it was with this vision ingrained deeply in him that he promoted the "Crown Colony" proposed by the Briitish constitutional expert Sir Reginald Coupland (Coupland Plan) during 1941-46 which was then discussed and deliberated by a select team of British Civil servants to create a Crown Colony similar to that of Hong Kong and Singapore, comprised of the Northeastern Hills and western Burma predominantly inhabited by tribals whose way of life and culture the British knew was distinctly apart from the more advanced mainland Indians and wanted to protect them by granting an autonomy of sorts through the Plan.
Many things happened during the transition and departure of the British which shelved the Coupland plan forever. The demise of the "Crown Colony" was a blow to the dreams of T Sakhrie who eventually focused on the home-rule oaf Naga people through guardianship of a bigger power under a time-bound agreement.
T Sakhrie died too early for today's generation to acquaint themselves with his contributions in the freedom movement compounded by relentless efforts by contemporary detractors who played down the significance of his contributions to the movement at its nascent stage. But as we witness the unfolding events of the Indo-Naga political issue today and the stark reality at hand, would it not be proper to observe that 64 years after his demise, the vision of T Sakhrie for a Naga Nation is gaining greater relevance by the day?
We can only conclude this brief note with a humble appeal to all citizens including the Naga Political Group leaders that there is more hope than despair in uniting together and forge ahead with a focus on the vision of our pioneers. If they had braved through the stormy political upheaval in a primitive settings of the day, are we not more enlightened, empowered and poised in a far higher ground to bring the dreams of the pioneers to fruition?
On behalf of LIEVÜSE CLAN,
Dr Kepelhusie Terhüja, President
Atsolie Liegise, Secretary
Khonoma, Nagaland.
(Extracts and quotations from: THE VISION OF T SAKIIRIE FOR A NAGA NATION, by Ahu Sakhrie, 2006)
