Mazie Nakhro, PhD
If the signatories of the Shillong Accord (SA) are to be blamed, then all those who pressured them into signing that infamous document must be partially blamed too.
Let me explain: It is a fact that the Nagaland Peace Council (NPC) consisting of five Naga civil society representatives played a leading role in the process leading up to the signing of the SA. Their intent, of course, was to restore peace through some sort of negotiation with the Government of India (GoI). With this in mind, they acted as intermediaries and pressured some Naga national leaders (I. Temjenba, S. Dahrü, Zamyo Zimik, M. Assa, Venyiyi Rhakho [refused to sign the accord], and Kevi Yalie) into signing the SA in exchange for two immediate benefits: (1) the release of many Naga political prisoners incarcerated in various jails across India, and (2) an ensuing respite to our civil population from constant Indian Army’s harassment. Considering these facts, the blame must be shared by the signatories of the SA, the members of NPC, and the Naga civil society.
While surrendering was certainly wrong, the signatories only did so under duress amidst an intolerable situation brought about by some Naga armed forces of the unconstitutionally formed Revolutionary Government of Nagaland (RGN) which was later converted into two new battalions of the Border Security Force (BSF) in August 1973. It was this group that went full swing after the NNC and the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) which had a military wing for national defence. Thus, the source responsible for shooting down the Naga national movement was none other than the RGN/BSF. They worked hand-in-hand with the Indian Army in the early 1970s and forced the entire NNC/FGN to a corner of no escape except by way of having five Naga national leaders surrendered and signed the SA on November 11, 1975. This, then, is clear proof that the real traitors of the Naga nation were the collaborators of the Indian Army, namely, the Naga armed forces of the RGN/BSF of that time.
And yet, there are still many who continue to view the signatories as traitors. This is especially true amongst the loyalists of the NSCN. But most Angamis and Chakhasangs see things somewhat differently. One of their most widely respected civil society elders describes their view in these words: “The real betrayal was the Revolutionary Government as they went all out to put our own people to prison, but Muivah changed history because he needed the Semas so badly so he made Shillong Accord the scapegoat and the public fell into his trap.” Thus, according to a section of the Naga population, it was Mr. Muivah who unfairly projected the signatories of the SA to the public as traitors for reasons best known to him.
A traitor, by definition, is someone who collaborates with the enemy against his own people or nation for personal gain. Now the question is, do any of the signatories of the SA fit that definition? Here, let me share my opinion about one of them, namely, Mr. Ramyo Zimik. To be quite candid, we knew each other as having held opposing views. As someone nominated to be the convenor of the first gathering of all Nagas in the United States in 1989, I met Mr. Zimik for the first time at Dr. Aryo Shishak’s residence in Milford, Pennsylvania. And during our first meeting I addressed him as “Shri Ramyo Zimik,” to which he mildly protestedfor using such an Indian honorifictitle. Our next point of disagreement was this: While my real intent for our gathering was to eventually form an apolitical association of all Nagas in the United States, he cleverly steered the direction of our gatheringtowards his idea of building some sort of a political wing for the Naga national cause. And to my disappointment, our meeting ended in a limbo. Nevertheless, my take-ways about him were: (1) Mr. Zimik was a real Naga nationalist at heart; and (2) as someone trained in the law, he seemed to be an expert at manoeuvring complicated issues towards his point of view. Now looking back, I cannot help but ask myself, could Mr. Zimik be the “brain” behind the SA which was a document of surrender but at the same time a scapegoating instrument? Or even if the SA was a product of collective brains, what the signatories did was incredibly ingenious in the sense that they distracted their opponents’ attention to avoid the real issues. How? They cleverly used the act of surrender on behalf of the “underground organization” (a fake entity which had neither form nor substance) as a cover (scapegoating) to avoid the real issues represented by loaded words such as NNC, FGN, Nagas, or Nagaland in the SA document. And by doing so, they made sure that the SA had nothing to do with the NNC or the Naga people as far as from the standpoint of legal politics.
However, the SA still presents a potential danger for the signatories and the NNC. The only reason the GoI is not making an issue of the SA till now is because most Nagas already equate the SA to the NNC and consider this first national institution of the Nagas as no longer relevant, thereby precisely fulfilling India’s wish. But let’s not be naïve -- India is extremely shrewd! From the perspective of the GoI, the SA is very much a valid document and she would still undoubtedly hold the signatories accountable to the terms of the SA and use their signatures against them. In addition, the GoI could very well use the Transit Camp, which was a by-product of their surrender and a symbol of the SA, as an “argument by association” to support her claim that the NNC is a party to the SA and thus spread a false narrative.
Considering all this, what should be our response towards the signatories of the SA? As a start, the NNC and the Naga people should be very grateful to the signatories because they offered themselves as scapegoats for their own countrymen. On the other hand, the NNC and the Naga people would do well to keep a distance from the signatories and the Transit Camp because public perception, whether right or wrong, is everything in politics.
