Establishing ground rules to settle our infighting

Mazie Nakhro, PhD

Why reopen an old wound? Nobody in his right mind would enjoy doing that, but the fact remains that an ignored wound is more dangerous.That’s why we must constructively analyze the causes of our divisions within the Naga family for genuine reconciliation and unity to take place based on truth. With this objective in mind, this writer will attempt to address the controversies surrounding the Shillong Accord (SA) in four articles.  

An African Proverb says, “When two brothers fight with each other to death, someone else inherits their inheritance.” This is exactly what’s happenings: as we Nagas are fighting amongst ourselves, outsiders are taking advantage of us. 

Like in the above imagery, the infighting is between the Naga National Council (NNC) and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) over unresolved questions regarding the SA. More specifically, their controversies have to do with questions like: Did the NNC really betray the Naga national cause in the SA of 1975? Is the NNC to be equated with the SA? Has the NNC lost the people’s mandate of 1951 because of the SA? Should we consider the NNC as dead? Has the NSCN become the new legitimate group to represent the Naga national cause? If the NSCN fails, does that mean the Naga political future dies with it too? 

Unfortunately, for those who have already made up their mind either way, nothing else can change them. But for the benefit of all open-minded Nagas and our coming generations, we must bring some closure by honestly addressing our disputes and settling them sooner than later.  

So, how should we resolve our internal disputes and settle our infighting? Here are some possible criteria or ground rules for consideration:

1.    At the earliest, our civil societies should facilitate and ensure an environment of free speech and honest conversation so that scholars and students alike may be encouraged to conduct investigative research and do specific case studies on all related issues of the SA. 

2.    All discussion and debates should be issue-based. Conversely, subjective feelings such as tribal loyalty and emotional grievances arising from the loss of lives should not be allowed lest they cloud our judgment or wrongly influence our decision-making process. 

3.    Everyone must make a commitment to be objective in our decision-making. All our interpretations should be subjected to a strict scrutiny to ensure objectivity. Hearsays from secondary sources may not take precedence over primary sources; people’s opinions may not triumph over facts; evidence must count more than allegations. 

4.    Even whatever AZ Phizo or anyone else said should be subjected to the laws and rules of the Naga national constitution. Whatever goes against it must be condemned by all, without fear or favour.  

5.    Only the first Naga national constitution which was adopted in 1962 and amended in 1968 may form the basis for all judgments for the simple reasons that (a) this source document was their point of common agreement, and (b) all our past national leaders had sworn an oath to abide by and uphold its laws. 

6.    The interpretation of the laws and rules of the Naga national constitution must be based on the principles of originalism. By originalism, no new meaning may be imported from any other source, because laws and rules of any national constitution cannot simply change with change of times unless amended first. In other words, our interpretation of the constitution should be strictly limited to and according to the original intent, whether explicitly or implicitly.

By putting a process that is completely transparent and fair, we Nagas can hopefully resolve our disputes and end our infighting. However, if we cannot settle our own problems ourselves, we would need to find an external body to arbitrate. In such a situation, all members of that jury body should be neutral, apolitical, independent, and non-Nagas– that is, an independent jury must be put together to assist us. 

After all evidences are heard and weighed in, all parties must agree to accept the verdict of the jury as final and binding. If the verdict goes in favour of the NSCN, then the NNC must be officially declared as having forfeited her claim to the people’s mandate of the Plebiscite of 1951. But if the NNC is proven right, then the NSCN must accept the NNC as the Naga peoples’ ultimate political institution. Or for a compromised solution, the NNC and the NSCN could become two political parties (such as a democratic party vs a socialist party) under one national constitution or they could become two separate branches for the Naga freedom cause similar to the Indian National Army under Subhash Chandra Boss and the Nonviolent Movement under Mahatma Gandhi. 

While bringing an acceptable closure to their dispute is an important political objective, this can only be a means to an end. The purpose of the conflict resolution should never be to shame or defeat any group. Rather, our ultimate goal should be realizing where we have gone wrong as a people and reaching a better understanding of each other so that we can be reunited for our common Naga cause. With all this in mind, let us begin an open dialogue on the Shillong Accord controversy.