Sentilemla Jamir, Delhi University
There are a few things that disturb one more than rank opportunism. Yet, opportunism is something that one has to confront in the course of political struggles. In the course of the discussions between Naga national representatives and the government of India, there have been instances where an ethical politics based on justice gave way to opportunistic politics. The proposal to settle for economic independence instead of political independence is one such instance of mindlessness posing as an alternative.
There are two principle reasons why this writer objects to a debate that poses the economic independence over political independence as a possible way out of the Indo-Naga conflict. The first is rooted in the idea and ethics of justice. How can deep rooted issues of justice that gave birth to one of the longest, protracted struggles in Asia be reduced to a choice as simplistic as this? In posing two forms of independence, the proponents of economic independence have obfuscated the parameters of the Naga struggle itself. There is no way in which the contests over power and justice can be surgically dissected in this manner. It reduces a long history of struggle to crass compromised solutions that serve the interests of those who wish to maintain a status quo. In the course of the evolution of the right of a people to determine their own futures, never has the idea of a piece-meal solution such as this offered any possibility of redress of injustice.
The second reason for objecting to this solution is rooted in reality. What kind of economic independence is being offered to the Naga people at a time when the notion of state-centered sovereignty has been subverted by trans-national financial institutions? Do the proponents of economic independence really think that the Naga people can enjoy economic independence, and redistribute the wealth-producing capacities of the people in a just and equitable manner at a time when there is a serious onslaught of capital? In reality, the resources of the Naga people have already been bartered out to a large extent to private hands and there is already a large interest-group that seeks to hasten the process further. Given this background, there is even more reason to rubbish the economic-independence –before-political –independence argument as mischievous flights of fancy that wish to cover their paucity of ideas with a solution that is absurd.
Such processes will continue to wedge into the real issues of justice that the Naga people have been fighting for, for the past six decades. The enormous gains of the Naga struggle, the forging of a national bond, the persistence of a politics of ethics and justice, stands to be bartered away to rank opportunists who have no commitment, leave alone any sympathy, for the movement. Their proposition – to settle for economic independence – rather than widen the sphere of just solutions, only makes the political imagination less capable of thinking of real alternatives that can address the complexities of protracted struggles. Real political alternatives will arise only when such opportunism is exposed and debunked.
