Recently the Naga Hoho held a consultative meeting with Tribe Hohos wherein several consensus decisions were taken after threadbare discussion in matters pertaining to the common interest of Naga people as a whole. The Indo-Naga political issue was obviously the primary focus with serious deliberation over the fifteen years long Indo-Naga cease fire vis-à-vis political dialogue between the NSCN (IM) and Government of India and necessity for early Indo-Naga political settlement within 2012. In an important consensus it was also decided to send a Naga Hoho delegation to New Delhi and appraise the Indian leaders in all competent platforms for early political settlement. Over and above, the Naga Hoho made an appeal to all Naga political groups to join in the ongoing political dialogue based on the principles of “one people one nation”. Since we are now talking about the contours of a solution emerging sooner than later, we need to reflect even more about the kind of solution in the offing and perhaps how best the Nagas as a people can respond to the needs of the present while keeping in mind the possibilities of the future.
While our discourse has always been about reconciliation and the peace process, which no doubt they are vital to the success of a political settlement, we should, however not ignore the geography and political boundaries that have kept the Naga people divided. So perhaps we need to also contemplate and voice our opinion on what kind of solution/s would be best for the Nagas knowing that at one level, Nagas have been divided between India and Burma while at another level, Naga people and their land has been kept divided in different States of India, although wherever we are, Naga area is contiguous. However it is also a fact that although Nagas are one people we have many strands—based on our tribal lineage, geography or even political thinking. So it’s very easy to appeal for a solution on the principle of one nation one people but equally difficult when it comes to the practical reality of a divided geography.
Perhaps what is needed is more honest deliberation on how best to go about doing things. For instance, former Union Home Secretary G.K. Pillai was of the view that the NSCN (K), led by the Myanmar-based S.S. Khaplang, was likely to look “eastward” (to Naypyidaw, the Myanmarese capital) rather than to west (Delhi) given the changing socio-political scenario in the neighbouring country. Not everyone may agree with Pillai but obviously all this is within the realm of possibilities. Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio has also advocated for two separate solutions to solve the Naga political problem, one with New Delhi while the other with Myanmar, since the Nagas were divided between the two countries by the erstwhile colonial rulers. According to Rio, the Naga people living in both side of the international border needed the political settlements with respective government of India and Myanmar for lasting peace. So you see it is good and healthy to throw up possibilities so that people’s collective wisdom can also shape or guide important political decisions taken by our leaders. More Nagas need to speak out and give their valuable suggestions.
