The escalating crisis in East Timor once again serves as reminder that Independence is not the end. It never has been. At best, Independence needs to be perceived as a necessary means through which a nation organizes and constructs its reality to be a self-determining entity. Unfortunately, nations and peoples engaged in independence movements are so caught up in the details of their past and present, that little energy is ever attributed towards planning out their future. The predicament caused by the assumption that everything will take care of itself once independence is realized, is a costly oversight.
In retrospection, one critical drawback of most independence movements is that they are often too consumed with processes of state-building, rather than nation-building. As much as these two processes are often perceived and interpreted as being the same, they are actually two very different aspects with different implications, though interrelated at some point. Ironically, with the present state system, state-building has developed into a parochial reality, and in several cases, turned anti-peoples.
The inability to clearly distinguish and appreciate state-building and nation-building as different but interrelated processes, results in a classic case where independence movements are unable to transcend and imagine beyond the present state system. In such circumstances, independence movements inevitably replicate the state system both in structure and function as well. The fragility of this position is further compromised by the involvement of foreign countries with enormous interest in investments. The most recent example in case is East Timor where the liberated government is now resorting to the use of force against its own people. Nepal is on the borderline.
The underlying necessity to engage in nation-building processes cannot be ignored. It is at the backdrop of how a people defines and constructs what independence means to them. Nation-building in a sense is an ongoing process of dialogue and engagement around issues that are essential for the dignified existence of a people seeking to be independent. It is about envisioning new structures of governance, formulating relevant policies for development and economic growth, creating new justice systems and determining an accommodative and respectful social and political space that will respect the diversity of all peoples and cultures.
To this end, the emphasis lies on how different positions and interests existing within a society seeking independence can engage in a collaborative process that will lead to a political consensus. The idea of a consensus is important because if implies the willingness of differing viewpoints to negotiate a common understanding of how the future of a nation would look like. A consensus is forward looking and serves as an intervention in breaking away from a rigid impasse which has entrenched over time between deeply polarized opinions of the same reality. In this sense, a consensus is about uniting in purpose for an envisioned common future, which includes a reached understanding on how to constructively address a painful past.
In the final analysis, Independence becomes meaningful and real only when nation-building processes of engagement and political consensus is occurring to give direction on how a people can exercise their rights, responsibilities and duties. Do Nagas have the will to arrive at a political consensus?