E T Sunup
After six decades of an often horrendous, bloody, agonizing and sometimes tragic political journey, the Nagas seem to be back where we started from,- in dire need of, and in unending search for a ‘very final political settlement’ that will hopefully usher in permanent peace in our land. Ordinary folks like me everywhere attempt to take a peep beyond what looks like a long, complicated tunnel, yearning and longing for that ‘final homecoming’, only to be confronted by a host of complex and difficult questions to which answers to common folks are extremely hard to find.
In Quest of Pragmatism:
In the recent spate of print-media debate on the issue, one has been coming across interesting and encompassing, but sometimes intimidating phrases and stated positions that may be understood something like: ‘negotiation’ on non-negotiable issues; ‘unconditional talks’ hemmed in by rigid conditions; ‘recognition of the uniqueness of Naga history’ that is caged inside a political framework of the status quo,- intimidating, because a possible solution to such a complex and passionate issue written in such thick blood, one thought, would not be so easily found within sweeping, rigid and inflexible positions, howsoever well intended or factually correct. Then one stumbles upon words like ‘pragmatism’, the need to be ‘pragmatic’, realistic’, etc. which seem to allow some space for a possible meeting point, but with some serious catch. Is Delhi’s avowed sincerity matched by an equal measure of empathy, realism and political courage, or, are they following a policy of appeasement, containment, a long-term strategy of indefinite dialogue engagement of ‘wait and see’, which could be forever? On our part, if front-runners and flag-bearers of the Naga political movement come together and ‘reconcile’ on one rigid, fixed and one-sided meeting point or position, in complete isolation of the overall contextual and circumstantial realities within which the Naga political issue may need to be addressed, then one’s humble view is that the much yearned-for final ‘homecoming’ will continue to be as elusive as ever. Everyone knows that to solve any problem, one must approach and tackle it in a realistic and practical manner. To one’s limited understanding, pragmatism in the context of the Naga political settlement is much more complex and multi-faceted than one would like to imagine. One thing though can be said with some conviction. Harping repeatedly with what looks like competitive zeal on one-sided, rigid and the same historical position through public statements and speeches by different individuals and groups do seem to narrow down the workable scope and range of realistic pragmatism for the actual flag-bearers who are engaged at the negotiation table. Can one suggest that patriotism and passion perhaps need to be also tempered by a generous measure of cool realism and practical wisdom,- not to mention, a truly attainable new Naga launch-pad as well?
How Much Independent is Independent Nagaland?
This is sensitive territory. The irrefutable Naga historical benchmarks and facts are well documented and aptly emphasized,- our distinctive racial identity as a free and independent people occupying certain contiguous geographical territories prior to partial British rule, clear desire expressed to the British to be left alone in our age-old traditional ways when they left colonial India, declaration of Naga independence on 14th August, 1947, the plebiscite of 1951, formation and declaration of an independent Nagaland Government in 1952 combining Eastern and Western Naga territories, entry into Nagaland of the Indian Armed Forces in 1955, and so on. Somewhere along the way, the Naga people and their territories got truncated not only between India and Burma, but between four States of the Indian Union. To make a complicated situation more complex, the Naga political movement once spearheaded and propelled by one single, unified Organization got fractured into four national political organizations with two Presidents, two Chairmen, four Ato Kilonsors, four national governments and armies, each claiming to be ‘the’ independent Government of Nagaland and all of them exercising to a greater or lesser degree the powers and functions of a government. Every year as 14th August comes round, Naga Independence Day Addresses are sent out by all four Heads of State. Such a complicated Naga national political scenario obviously does not seem to send out a very clear message about a sovereign, independent Nagaland, or about defending our declared independence by an independent Nagaland that tragically lies splintered inside India and Myanmar. The message becomes even more blurred when armed cadres belonging to different groups, all professing to subscribe to the same ultimate goal of freeing independent Nagaland attack and kill one another ruthlessly, including many innocent people who get caught in the crossfire. Additionally, the existence of the State of Nagaland with all the pre-requisite constituents and vigorous functioning of a State Government, regardless of whatever the differences in opinion about its status or quality in performance, is a present reality which cannot be just wished away. Add to this another stark reality. Long gone are the days when Nagas lived contented with their mostly hand-to-mouth village economy and severely circumscribed socio-political life, confined as they were within their own respective village territories, virtually, in most cases, as independent, ‘pure democracy’ village republics. For the ever increasing resource requirements of today’s Naga people and their respective territories for all-round development and progress, with legitimate aspirations like people everywhere in the world, there is no denying the fact that, on this side of Naga territories, we have been almost totally dependent on largesse doled out by Delhi regularly, from month to month, every year. The past surely is where we have our roots. The present, however, is a part of our history too, for better or for worse, which we must improve upon. This is not to berate or dilute the historical uniqueness of the Naga political issue. However, to those who may take the position that we should not even engage in negotiation with Delhi because we are already independent: ‘ Well, their point of view is highly respected. Would they though please show another workable way and lead the Nagas on that path to make independent Nagaland truly free? Would they explain to the Nagas how, practically, to isolate the Naga issue from the existing, circumstantial realities it is wedged in, and then solve it?’
A Question on the Number of ‘a Final Political Settlement’:
How many final political settlements can there be for the Nagas? This is not to favour or disfavour any particular political position or group. It is very simply an objective and plain personal perception of what is seen as the ultimate reality. Some people thought that the 16-Point Agreement, followed by creation of the State of Nagaland, would bring the Naga political issue to an end. They could not be further from the reality as subsequent historical developments proved. Others again cherished the same thoughts about the Shillong Accord of 1975. Just how mistaken they were requires no elaboration. At every such instance, there was , it seems, gross underestimation of just how deep and strong the issue of Naga freedom ran in the veins of Naga freedom fighters, and also of the determined tenacity and grit with which they could brave every adverse situation and overcome near impossible circumstances. Currently there are two very specific ceasefire agreements in place. Will Delhi make some more ceasefire arrangements with some other group or combination of groups? We common folks do not have the faintest idea whether any Naga national group or combination of groups has a workable plan to solve the Naga issue without engaging in political dialogue with Delhi. We are in the dark too about how many groups Delhi might negotiate with, to bring the curtain down to an honourable end. When, however, the final finishing line is in sight, it is one’s personal understanding that there can only be one very final political settlement for the Naga people, unless, once again, the past mistakes are allowed to be repeated. We all know that there is currently a political dialogue going on between one Naga national organization and Delhi. If the dialogue leads to a settlement that is for the group alone, that cannot be called a settlement for the Nagas. If, however, the scope of dialogue and its final outcome is intended for the entire Naga people, then does it not stand to perfect reason and practical patriotic sense that all Nagas and Naga organizations rally around in force behind the on-going peace process and provide realistic space to both sides to facilitate the birthing of a final agreement? Unfortunately, one does get the impression from time to time that legitimacy seems to have become a strong, if not self-destructive, competing issue. Are we more concerned about which particular group only is the right group to bring the “Gold Medal” or about whether the “Naga Gold Medal” is finally ‘won’ and ‘brought home’? Nagas would like to believe that all the Naga National Organizations exist not just for their own name and honour, but for the ultimate good of the Naga people. Can we then transcend beyond ourselves and our own organizations for this one noble objective, when the opportunity presents itself, and join our hearts and minds to make possible the attainment of this final goal,- permanent peace in our homeland?
Beyond Reconciliation and Unity:
Since the Naga national workers, leaders and armed cadres hail from two different countries and four States within India, certain very difficult questions become inevitable.
In the event of a final political settlement with India, in whatever shape or content, will those Naga national workers from Myanmar, including leaders like Mr. Khaplang, endorse it fully, and allow peace to settle permanently in Nagaland? Should such a settlement, for certain irreconcilable reasons, exclude certain Naga territories or Naga inhabited areas within India, can we still rest assured of endorsement from all quarters for permanent peace within Nagaland? As a random example, how about the possible exclusion from the new Nagaland of some of the Naga reserved forest areas alienated to Assam by the British without our consent, which have since been unofficially de-reserved by Assam, settled with thousands of immigrants and developed with full socio-economic infrastructure as revenue lands under the administrative control of Assam?
All Nagas are happy about the ‘Covenant of Reconciliation’ signed by various Naga national leaders. Leaders and organizations led by them have raised high and clear the banner: ‘Nagaland for Christ’. ‘Reconciliation in Christ’ as the Bible teaches us certainly involves forgiving one another just as Christ has forgiven us completely. There is no telling how disturbing it becomes when leaders of the organizations who were part of the ‘Covenant of Reconciliation’ issue public statements virulently attacking leaders, tribes and organizations, sometimes, as it seems, hurling skeletons of the past with scant hesitation or restraint. One wonders whether the Naga public could expect more dignified, statesmanship-like public statements and postures from people who claim to be holding in their hands the political destiny of the Naga people? ‘Unity’ is a powerful word which, as one understands, can take place on an issue or for a common objective without losing one’s intrinsic identity. Transcending such ‘unity’ or ‘reconciliation’ on some agreed upon position, when people talk about distinctively different organizations becoming ‘united’, certain inevitable questions beg for specific answers, like: ‘Under what new name have they become united? What is the new, united identity, to be known as? Who is the new President/Chairman, etc. etc., down the line, of the new, united organization, etc? Sans clear answers to such uncomfortable questions, there is perhaps a distinction to be made between ‘unity’ that amounts to merger and mere ‘coalition’. Of course, the Naga people surely would like nothing better than to see a genuine and complete unity being forged among all the Naga National Organizations. In the meantime, we all know that conflicting voices, counter-moves and attempts to scuttle, if any, would only help to weaken, delay and dissipate the chances of arriving at a final political destination. To remain in a state of confrontation and conflict is only to ensure that our common political goal remains as distant as ever. Does anybody seriously believe that the Nagas are going to get what we believe is our legitimate political right by attacking and fighting against one another amongst ourselves?
That Which is Honourable and Acceptable to All Concerned:
Just how does one navigate through inflexible, opposite positions that seem to be totally irreconcilable and arrive at a mutual destination that is ‘honourable’ and ‘acceptable’ to all concerned? From public statements given from time to time by various leaders from both sides, two completely opposite positions appear to have become clear. Delhi’s ‘honourable’ and ‘acceptable’ position, after accepting the uniqueness of Naga history’, now reads something like: ‘An independent Nagaland and a settlement outside the Indian Constitution is out of question. Also, a Greater Nagaland is inconceivable’. That which is ‘honourable’ and ‘acceptable’ to the Naga national leaders on the other hand is just the opposite of Delhi’s ‘acceptable honourability’. One thing though looks certain. The possibility of ‘independent Nagaland’ getting ‘liberated’ through international diplomatic pressure or direct military intervention in the foreseeable future has to be totally ruled out.
Assuming, however, that Delhi’s recognition of the uniqueness of Naga history does run deep enough to concede to the demands for an independent, greater Nagaland, we would then be concerned primarily about the nature and substance of bilateral relations between Nagaland and India, and also of course about the content and quality of the State pillars,- political, administrative, judicial, economic and social,- upon which the new, independent Nagaland is built. Should such a final settlement be agreed to and mooted by the present Central Government in Delhi, which itself is a coalition government, one sees the road-blocks in the current Houses of the Indian Parliament as simply insurmountable. For, quite contrary to belief in some quarters, a State within the Indian Union, as Nagaland now is, can only cede with the approval of both Houses of the Indian Parliament. Would the Indian political fraternity have the requisite moral conviction and political will to go the distance, regardless of the possibility of whatever spill-over effects it may have on another extremely sensitive state like Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere in India? Let us hope they do.
Consider the alternative possibility. On 22 December, 1964, J P Narayan, Member of the Nagaland Peace Mission, is reported to have stated in Calcutta that short of sovereignty the Peace Mission had suggested a compromise formula of giving to Nagaland a Bhutan-like status. Also, in 1967, short of independence, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have been willing at one stage to give any amount of autonomy to Nagaland. After 13 years of dialogue including quite a few at the Prime Minister level, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram recently stated in Parliament about pluralistic characteristics of states and efforts being made to ensure ‘honour, dignity and equal rights’ of the Nagas within the Constitution, as if every Indian citizen does not have them already. He also stated: “ Nagas are there in Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh. It is inconceivable that we break up the states”. Of course everyone knows that states have been broken up from time to time and new ones created out of them when political necessity was matched by political will to do so. Also, it requires no school teacher to explain to us the world of difference between pluralistic characteristics of states and a Greater Nagaland, comprising contiguous Naga territories under one political umbrella and administrative control, which will continue to be as pluralistic as the present state of Nagaland already is. Besides, the Union Minister’s statement completely negates clauses 12 and 13 of the 16-Point Agreement signed during creation of Nagaland State,- which in any case have never been implemented or even addressed with any amount of seriousness by Delhi since the Agreement was signed some 50 years ago! Clause 11 of the same Agreement has since been diluted and clause 2 abrogated unilaterally by Delhi. Can Delhi now give some more compelling reasons to bolster the Naga confidence in Delhi’s future commitments?
Assuming that a final settlement falls short of sovereignty, to what extent then can the ‘concept of shared sovereignty’ mentioned by the present Interlocutor be stretched, allowing greater autonomy to Nagaland that can be considered as honourable enough? Short of sovereignty, the issue of a greater Nagaland, in my view, would be the litmus test as well as cornerstone of any possible settlement, without which a final call appears highly unlikely.
The origin and basis of citizenship, customary law and practices, traditional land holdings and social practices for the Naga, whatever Article 371A(1)(a)of the Indian Constitution provides for, are all rooted in his village. The village is his life-spring. Remove a Naga from his village, he loses his root and true identity. Outside his own village he does not have a home constituency, to begin with. The village of course is an integral part of a tribe. One cannot, therefore, imagine the possibility of the Naga national leaders and their subordinate cadres, after six decades of life sacrifice, ever accepting a settlement that rules out their own villages and tribal territories from the settlement purview. For this, the Naga, in most cases, may be prepared to pay any price for any number of generations to come. Should a final ‘honourable and acceptable to all concerned’ resolution indeed take place, as everyone hopes it will, there would then be at least four areas of immediate concern:
(1) that, whatever has been signed into agreement becomes law through legislation by the Parliament of India so that its implementation becomes mandatory;
(2) that, every tenet of the agreement is fully honoured and implemented within a reasonable time-frame, preferably under some trust-worthy supervisory authority or body;
(3) that, the total State outstanding debt burden, basic infrastructure development needs and clear-cut financial arrangements are all adequately addressed in the settlement instrument as a special package; ( or, should adequate compensation be also claimed , for the tragic loss of every innocent Naga life, limb and property, life impairment, tortures, imprisonments, rapes and atrocities of the inhuman kind, suffered in the hands of the Assam Police and Indian Security Forces since 1953?)
(4) that, the transition Government in the new Nagaland is truly representative, accommodating all concerned with honour and dignity, is given reasonably adequate time to set right the new rather complicated Naga house in order, and that it truly lives up to the colossal challenges and responsibilities of healing the ailing Naga collective life on all key fronts. This may require special dispensation.
In the meantime, the Naga common folks continue to ponder and ask: “How long will it be when, even in peace times, we are no longer treated like aliens and random, cognizable crime suspects by the Indian security forces acting under AFSPA in our own homeland, and when, indeed, we have to pay ‘tax’ to one single government only of Nagaland without fear and under the rule of law?” And what about the Nagas and Naga territories in Myanmar?
(The writer is a Retired IAS officer)
