The idea of Sovereignty has, for most of humankind, been limited to a political tool. Its evolution as a political concept needs to be understood within the changing nature of political institutions. In essence, the idea of Sovereignty has never quite been sovereign. Its interpretation is relative to how political power is organized, this means that Sovereignty cannot be seen in absolute terms. There is no such thing as full-sovereignty or half-sovereignty because it is not implemented in a vacuum, but rather in a relational context. This understanding of the nature of Sovereignty shows that it is determined by the people, and more importantly, for people to be able to exercise their rights and freedoms without interference.
The Magna Carta of 1215 limited the absolute sovereign powers of the King of England. Today, the absolutism of State Sovereignty which dominated international politics for the last 400 years has been critically interrogated by the forces of global events that unfolded since 1991. Fortunately, these events made it possible to challenge the idea of State and Territorial Sovereignty, both in theory and practice. Michel Foucault adds that the end of sovereignty is circular, in the sense that the end of State sovereignty is the exercise of Peoples’ sovereignty. The future of sovereignty undeniably lies with the people, not with the State.
As Foucault points out that the future of sovereignty lies with the people, indeed, Peoples’ Sovereignty empowers them to reclaim and define for themselves the self-determining capacities required for realizing their dignity. Peoples’ Sovereignty in effect implies that they have ownership over their land, their resources, their economies and their lives, which provides an alternative vision of the world best suited for them. It involves the active transitions of both humans and structures as they form right relationships with one another, hence, revealing the natural link between Peoples’ Sovereignty and the principles of shared responsibility in the web of life.
Therefore, for Peoples’ Sovereignty to exist and to translate itself as an existential reality in the global order, it is imperative for peoples’ movements to begin articulating and defining in concrete terms alternative models of State structures, power relations, modes of governance and just patterns of human relationship. This paradigm shift is taking place during the many transitions between humans and structures which is a condition required for the realization of humanity.
The Naga Peoplehood did not originate out of any other Nation or State; rather it emerged with the people through their villages and political communities. Hence, Sovereignty needs to be understood and recognized as originating internally from the Naga people. With this in mind, the Nagas through critical reflection can place themselves in realities that weigh both external and internal factors. The Naga Movement in pursuing its aspirations needs to clarify what it is required to do; and, to determine its own unique path based on contextual implementation. Mere sloganeering coupled with uninformed and distorted information thwarts us from engaging constructively with modern day challenges, and, thus endangering the movement to a disease that some define as “Exhausted Nationalism.”
Nagas need to break down interpersonal barriers, and form new relationships by honestly talking with one another so that a natural praxis or way of being will evolve based on the idea that the freedom of one is linked to the freedom of the other. Like all other struggling peoples, the Nagas only want to both sleep and wake up peacefully in their own homes, enjoy eating meals with family and friends, be assured of their dignity and that of their children, have meaningful work, govern themselves on what they know is best and right, make their own unique path, celebrate together singing and dancing . . . !
The future of sovereignty, inevitably, lies not with the State, but with the Peoples!
