People are of the talk about the Shillong Accord of 1975. Nagas needs to understand the background of splitting the NNC into two factions; One, a faction Bourne of the political ideology to have a parliamentary form of Government and the other; the Presidential form of Government was at a crucial juncture sometime in the year 1967-68. A group of people supported a parliamentary form of Govt. in the Federal setup (FGN), was disappointed because the majority supported to retain the presidential form of Govt. at that point of time. As a result of which the group of people who supported the parliamentary form of Govt., had defected from the FGN and a formed of Revolutionary Govt. of Nagaland. Thus two factions from among the NNC were emerged. After which the whole setup of the Revolutionary Govt. of Nagaland surrendered to the Govt. of India. The remaining Federal Govt. of Nagaland supported the presidential form of Govt. to retain its originality was left alone. The crucial situation was being faced by them due to the heavy operation of the Indian Army. They had no alternative for their safety and as such some of the UGs leaders form NNC/FGN opted themselves to enter into an Agreement with the Govt. of India undesirably without the knowledge and consent of the NNC and its president A.Z. Phizo.
This Accord had brought about greater discord among the Nagas. It was surrender Accord and against the wishes of the people of Nagalim, why because, the Signatories were only composed of some of the unauthorized Officials taking the name of Underground representatives, who had no officials recognition of the federal Govt. of Nagaland. However, the said Shillong Accord has affected the surrendering of Arms and Ammunitions to the custody of Govt. of India with their own volition in which the competent authority of the Federal Govt. of Nagaland was silent. Therefore, the need arose for the Naga people to reconstitute her own Political Institution, to safe guard and protect the people by reforming her own organization to redeem the political rights of the Naga.
The Formation of NSCN, 1980:
In the beginning, the Naga National Council was first formed on the 2nd Feb. 1946 at Wokha as the only Political Organization of the Nagas. However, the NNC in its course of functioning had failed to uphold the National Principles due to certain political factors and circumstances leading to differences of opinions. The Nation was set at peril. As the result of which, a new political ideology/philosophy was necessitated in that political situation in order to redeem the Naga Nation. Therefore, the joint leadership of Issac Chishi Swu, SS Khaplang, Thuingaleng Nuivah, took up the whole responsibility of the Naga Nation. Thus a new form of National Political Organization was reformed as the National Socialist Council of Nagaland which was later on known as National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) wef. 31-01-1980 and the same have substituted the erstwhile Naga National Council (NNC). However the National Workers of the NNC who have not joined the Shillong Accord should be accountable in the record of the Nation as Freedom Fighters.
The NSCN and its adverse effect:
In spite of many obstacles and reverse tendency posed by some of the politicians of the Indian state of Nagaland which have infused the wrong concept to the National Leaders of the NSCN, a dangerous crisis arose from among the leaders of the same organization (NSCN). The ideological conflicts whether to save the National Politics or listen to the destructive policy of some leaders who were convicted themselves towards the policy of Indian to overrule the National Principle and its Entity as iot was in existence since ever time before.
In addition to that an infections virus has entered into the political process of the Nagas. The reasons were well known to those involved in the sinister process that inadvertently created a conflicting situation in the Naga Society.
It transpires form the fact that there had certain elements that had created an abnormal situation resulting distrust of the Naga publics particularly the Nagas of Myanmar. While screening out the facts as stated above, it was not due to the ignorance of the people about the Naga National cause, but the excess committed by a section of leaders against the will of the public. The history speaks….
Subsequently, conflicting divisions which had brought two different political ideologies based on the leadership of their own choice had resulted to the formation of two factions distinguished as NSCN (K) and NSCN (IM). It is also pertinent to consider that, the two factions are of the same goal and purpose. However, their approach for final solution of the Naga political problems has not been openly understood till date. As a result of which the general Naga public are kept under a dark shadow.
Now the General Public of the Nagas have the opinion that there should be no more faction Nagalim. The fact that, the Nagas are unique people having their unique history which has been duly recognized by the GOI. The record of which can be ascertained from the concerned competent authority. Accordingly, the forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) was constituted to facilitate and expedite the process for bringing an acceptable solution to both India and Nagalim first and then Nagalim and Myanmar together.
Notwithstanding any analysis, subscribed to above, the impending issue of the Nagas Negotiation (The Ongoing Talk, there has been many a critic who emphasizes their personal political ideologies blaming to one and another that the solution could not be arrived at by one particular faction but it should be jointly contributed from all the factions basing in the Naga Political Principles. Then as an observer, the writer has his own version as to why the correct platform for negotiation could not be constituted or mandated. It may be recalled that, the three factions had already consented to from a Naga National Government, denouncing the factionalism and also a High Level Committee to work out Modality and Pattern of Government so as to suit the Naga governance. And as such it is the duty bound for all factions to abide by the resolutions and Agreements made for the Naga National Government. There is no further argument as to why the question of reconciliation and Unity should be a hanging problem to the Nagas except total secession from killing one another is a must. Nagas are by nature of cult federalists in politics and socialists in economy. Every Village has her own Self Governance.
The Tradition, the Customary Laws and its Usages even though it was unwritten, has been practicing since ages past. The Tradition says that the nature of the Village Society and the Norm of Governance have certain distinction different from one another. In fact, one Village has one’s own Government. Likewise, a tribe is composed of many villages who speak one language and different tribes together from the Naga Ethnic Group now known as Naga Nation. The question of big or small in size does not make any different to be identify as a group of people but the cult or the tradition is the vital force of existence as a people may be known as nation. In these particular characteristics of the Nagas, equal due share of representations or power exercise in a common platform nay be political, Sociological or Economical aspect of life is a must for the Nagas. Here comes the truth of Accommodative Policy which binds the Nagas together. The Political Leaders of the Nagas today have cone short of the actual ideology as it is suited. Therefore, the conflict always arises among the Naga Society.
A reckoning time has come to remodel the Nagas Society in such a way that, the past failures with all its mistakes do not repeat in order to rebuild the inherent practice of the Nagas as an accepted norm has to be honored. That Nagalim today may be a New Nagalim Tomorrow where Peace and Freedom prevails.
NB:- This write-up is a personal analysis on Nagalim today. The analysis is based in the writer’s personal experience of the Naga Nation struggle since the formation stage till date. Any comment or constructive criticism on this publication may be referred to. Through the given No. 9436830698/ 03862-224712
