Robert A. Silverstein
“....Should India refuse to acknowledge the Naga rights and instead choose to continue the war with her military might, she must remember that Nagaland will not bleed alone. As long as India refuses to acknowledge the rights of the Nagas, she will always be Nagaland's companion in that bleeding and that weeping.” (Naga Saga, Third Edition, 2009. Pub. By Kaka D. Iralu, quote from third page of A NOTE TO THE READER. Book hereinafter cited as NS.) “....This political aspiration of the Nagas will continue to live on so long as India fails to completely wipe out the Nagas from the face of the earth.” (From a letter to the Rev. Michael Scott, Naga Peace Mission, cited with approval by Iralu, giving as his source, The Naga Chronicle by Dr. V.H. Nuh, pp. 233-237. NS, 357-358.) I read The Naga Saga thoroughly, all four-hundred-plus pages, just recently. It was given to me as a gift, while in Nagaland, on a visit to the home of a history professor, on January 1, 2016, with the promise to him that I would read it. In an article I wrote, published in the Morung Express on April 4, 2016, under the title, “The Reality of Naga Nationalism,” I cited Iralu's book, among others listed at the front of the article.
When the editor of The Morung Express e-mailed me that my article would be published, I looked it up on line and fortuitously found an article by Mr. Iralu. I then put his name in the research engine and found that he has literally dozens of articles in the paper. I printed out just the articles for the last eight months. I skimmed most of them, and read a few, and then decided that this article was something that I needed to write.
The reason I felt this way was because I felt that, overall, Iralu's facts were not accurate, were not cited properly or at all, and that he failed to explore issues that were necessary to his argument.
I felt that someone so prolific on a topic of such concern to the Naga people, nationalism, had an obligation to avoid errors and omissions fundamental to his arguments, for with such mistakes his writings would prove untrustworthy.
It is my contention that Iralu's many errors and omissions are complicating an already difficult and emotional issue (see again the opening quotes of this article), based on less than accurate commentary. His focus on the nationalist cause has affected his capacity for careful scholarship, which in turn affects the credibility of his writings.
My goal in this article is to encourage readers of Iralu's writings on nationalism to read them with skepticism, so that if you decide to take the path down the road to confrontation with the Indian government in the name of nationalism, you do it with as much accurate knowledge as possible. To risk your futures, indeed your lives, in the fight for a separate nation, should be because you have thought out the issues carefully and should have relied on leaders and commentators who have earned your trust because of their careful analysis of all the factors.
I have tried, in my April 4th article, to encourage the Naga to give up their fantasy of a separate nation and to get to work on the difficult task of becoming a prosperous state within the Indian union, as a very few other states have done, by eliminating the corruption by Nagas at the expense of their fellow Nagas, the extortion of Nagas by Naga thugs, and of doing the other difficult things necessary to make a very poor state a model one to live in. In that article, I tried to be as coherent and logical in my writing as I could, so that you may trust my writings, even if you ultimately disagree with my conclusions.
Readers should be slow to disregard my article of April 4th or this article because I'm a product of the West. To paraphrase a recent article from The Economist, the Nagas should not “detach their … [people] from Western rationalism, with its fussy obsession with truth and logic, and pursue different, mystical goals, creating a 'geographical border around a separate truth.'” The Economist, April 23rd, 2016, page 73.
Although Iralu's book consists mostly of descriptions of atrocities committed by the Indian government's soldiers or other forces fighting for the Indian government (much of these descriptions brutally hard to read and tragic), most other facts, relevant or not, give no source or authority other than Iralu himself, thus leaving the reader to accept Iralu's “facts” or to do the research on his own.
A few examples will suffice. On August 14, 1947, the Nagas declared their independence, and sent notice of this declaration to the United Nations. Iralu then says, “This message was signed by nine members of the NNC and acknowledgement [sic] was received from the UN from Lake Success.
NS, pp. 55-56.
What does Iralu not tell us? He does not tell us what the acknowledgment said. Was it just a signature indicating that the UN received the declaration? Were there any signs that it was read by anyone in the UN, and if so, by whom, and of what significance? These are all relevant to the Naga view of whether the world body took notice of the Naga declaration.
A second example. Iralu states, “... all the other princely as well as tribal peoples of the Northeast regions which had never been a part of India in history [like the Nagas], joined the Indian Union volitionlly.” NS, p. 57.
This is of critical importance to Iralu's argument that the Naga people were unique among the northeast peoples in their stand against the Indian government. Again, he has no source cited. Where did he get his information? Is he certain, are YOU certain, that all the other tribal areas and princely states voluntarily joined the Indian union? I am not certain of the history of the other northeast Indian states in relation to this question, but I am very familiar wth the history of Jammu and Kashmir. And to this day it is disputed by scholars, soldiers, politicians and others as to whether the princely state “voluntarily” joined the union, or was coerced to do so to get military aid to halt a Pakistani invasion. What are Iralu's sources which prove that each political entity voluntarily agreed to join the union? Iralu never tells us.
A third example. Iralu states, in black type so as to emphasize his point, “In the eyes of the caste-conscious Indian soldier, the Naga tribal was still one step lower than the Sudra. As far as he was concerned, the Naga tribal was a casteless non-entity, a savage who was even lower than the animals.” NS, p. 81. Again, Iralu gives us no source for this set of inflammatory conclusions. Did he decide to base his conclusion on the words of soldiers who were in the midst of committing atrocities? Did he read it in books? From scholarly sources who studied the attitude of Indian soldiers? Did Sikh soldiers feel the same way as Hindu soldiers? Iralu gives us no specifics.
How can Iralu, or any Naga, know whether every soldier viewed the Nagas this way? It is this sort of language, based on no cited facts, that causes Nagas to hate Indians today. It is sloppy thinking and sloppy writing, not allowing Nagas to carefully determine whether all Indian soldiers deserve to be condemned as Iralu concludes they do. Iralu does this sort of thing frequently, thus encouraging the reader to feel strongly negative feelings toward Indians that the latter may not deserve today.
Two other examples, these also of careless allegations that prove not to be factual, which may affect the reader's view of whether he or she should seriously consider confrontation with the Indian government in the name of nationalism. In an article in The Morung Express dated March 26, 2016, titled, “Some Easter Thoughts on Easter 2016,” Iralu states, “The words in Isaiah of course read 'The spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord had anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor … to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prisons to those who are bound.”
In his next paragraph he continues, “Jesus' mission to earth was not just the preaching of the good news to the poor but also included the setting at liberty them that were held in various human, social and political captivity on earth. I say social and political liberty on earth because after all, there surely would be no social or political captives in heaven that needs [sic] to be set free from their heavenly captivity!”
This is Iralu's attempt at biblical exegesis, and he fails utterly. But you'll notice that he fails in a way that supports his view that the Lord is on the side of the Nagas in their fight for a nation. First, he does not cite the chapter and verse of Isaiah, and, second, in his second paragraph, he interprets the verse in a way that somehow applies to his cause, and again gives no source for his interpretation.
What he referred to is Isaiah 61:1. I went to biblehub.com, under Pulpit Commentary, and it states, of Isaiah 61:1, “To proclaim liberty to the captives..... The 'captivity' intended is doubtless that of sin.” Yes, sin, not political liberty. If Iralu, or anyone else reading this article, thinks I am wrong, I challenge them to come up with a source for their interpretation, a professional source other than their own overactive imagination.
And be wary of anyone who quotes from religious texts in defense of any cause.
Religious texts are sources of nothing, in the world of power and politics, except as crutches in arguing for a cause when the person has no factual or logical arguments to cite. Here are two examples of not just Iralu's carelessness, but of his use of Western philosophies without any understanding of them. Both are in another article in The Morung Exress, this one dated April 5, 2016, titled, “The Indo-Naga Conflict And The Battle Between Truth and Pragmatism.” In it he delves into the philosophy of Pragmatism, and tries to contrast it with what he considers the truth!
Here is a definition of a Pragmatist by one of its founders, William James (who Iralu mentions but does not quote): A Pragmatist “turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins.
He turns toward concreteness and adequacy, toward facts, toward action....It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against … dogma, and the pretence [sic] of finality of truth.” (http://www.britannica.com/topic/pragmatism-philosophy, para.
2.) Everything that the above definition of a Pragmatist is are qualities one would want in someone analyzing the pros and cons of acting on the desire for a separate nation: someone who condemns “pretended absolutes,” who is against “dogma” and the “pretence [sic] of finality of truth.” These are not qualities Iralu seemingly believes in. Thus his criticism of Pragmatism.
Iralu, in the same article, refers to one of the most difficult concepts in Western philosophy, the Hegelian dialectic.
He states that the dialectic is “'truth' (Thesis) and its opposite 'falsehood' (Antithesis).” He never mentions the conclusion of those two concepts, which is “synthesis,” because it is clear to me,that he has no idea what the Hegelian dialectic is.
I will not get into this topic here, even if I felt fully competent to do so. I'll just say that the Hegelian dialectic is not what Iralu says it is.
I will end this paragraph with a source that will explain the basics of the Hegelian dialectic if you have the urge to learn a bit about it, but keep in mind that Iralu again gave no source for his definitions of the terms, and, when you go to my citation, you will see that it has nothing to do with what he says it does. It's just more error in his attempt to support his views on nationalism. It is this sort of error that should serve as a constant warning to you all about all of Iralu's writings. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic, under the heading Hegelian dialectic and endnotes 34 through 47 therein, for a brief introduction to the subject.)
Lastly, one more critical point. In Naga Saga Iralu spends many pages describing the help China gave the Nagas back in the 1960s (e.g., p. 221, ff), and mentions the help Pakistan gave to the Nagas (e.g., p. 201, ff), this also in the 1960s. This is a characteristic of not just Iralu, but of other Nagas that I have spoken to personally and of many book and articles (from the state papers of Nagaland) that I have read.
The whole conversation about nationalism is immersed in memorials and other references to the past.
I have seen no analysis of the present situation of the countries surrounding Nagaland that could, but in my opinion will not, assist Nagaland today, or in the foreseeable future, to reach its aspirations for nationhood.
Pakistan is about to implode, destroying itself with its own Pakistani Taliban; Russia, no longer the USSR, is weak and a kleptocracy, utterly corrupt and on the verge of economic collapse; and China, aggressively asserting itself in the South and East China Seas, thus driving other nations in the area into alliances with the United States against it, is therefore in no condition to pick a fight with India.
Neither China, nor Pakistan, nor Russia, nor any other great nation will risk its relationship with India at this time or the foreseeable future for the sake of Nagaland. All have different reasons for not doing so, from the economic growth of India and its markets to India's growing military power, still less than China, but now, unlike during the 1962 war, with nuclear weapons.
The Nagas must stop talking to themselves in their own little bubble. They have an obligation to look reality straight in the eye, not just listen to those who may erroneously steer them into a war of almost certain defeat and destitution, but try to grasp the possibilities of a stronger and more prosperous state within the Indian union. It will require great effort and courage. But better to struggle for a good life than to do the same for death and a false martyrdom.
If Mr. Iralu, or any person reading this article, feels up to challenging the things I say here, I am planning on coming over to Nagaland again this July and would be happy to meet with, or debate, anyone in any forum in the Kohima or Dimapur area.
*The author is a retired Criminal defense lawyer and a former Military Police officer. Upon retirement he finished nursing school and practiced on a medical-surgical floor of a local hospital. He has also done voluntary service in different parts of India. The author completed his M.A. Degree in Politics at New York University in 1978 and his M.Phil. Degree in Politics at Oxford University, Oxford, England in 1980.
