Our state government has sufficient funds and many good programs for development of the Eastern Nagaland Nagas. But the problem is the corrupt people, including the ones from Eastern Nagaland, who use the system for personal gain and show very little concern for the poor and needy in remote places. As such, the developmental programs and services often fail. Even public money does not reach its intended people because it gets pocketed in the forms of cuts, commissions and taxes. In a way, our pipeline is broken and our containers have too many holes. This has resulted in deep feelings of discontent and disunity within the Naga family. So this article examines three different ways of finding a solution:
Option #1. Separate Statehood: Some Eastern Nagas assume that their problems can be best solved through the creation of another state, a Frontier Nagaland. But before taking such a drastic measure, they would do well to answer these questions: Does this mean that all Eastern Nagas have to leave their jobs and residences in Western Nagaland? Does this mean that the Aos, the Tenyimis, the Sumis and others living in Eastern Nagaland must evacuate too? What if our intermarried couples and their children dislike the idea of a disintegrated Naga family? What if some people of Kiphere see a better future with their Western brethren in view of their proximity to Kohima or Dimapur? What if the Tikhir tribe decides not to join with the other six tribes? What if the present government of Nagaland opposes the separation? And what if Delhi decides not to create one more state for the Nagas? If any of these things gets in the way, the six tribes could be left hanging in a limbo and this could put them further behind others.
Although the grievances of the Eastern Nagas are genuine, the basis of their demand is weak and shaky. It is neither grounded on a different racial commonality nor supported by a different religious faith. Their demand is only based on developmental, social and political grievances which can be easily corrected.
As members of the same Naga family, we must stand together or else we will all fall together. For example, a further split in our family will further complicate our struggle for a common Naga future. A formation of another state under the Indian Constitution goes against our dream of coming together under a single political umbrella. If we become divided, the strength of our voice will also be weakened in terms of our negotiation with India or our fight for the welfare of our brethren living in Myanmar.
The idea of a separation also goes against modern trends: intermarriages are increasingly occurring among our young people and our children’s generation will prefer more social networking over some socio-political issues. My point is this: we must not make things worse for our children. On a broader scale, people everywhere are increasingly moving from rural to urban, thus bringing an unprecedented demographic change. This will also be true for our Eastern Nagas. Whether for education, jobs, business or travel, it would be in their interest not to cut themselves off from places like Kohima, Dimapur, Jorhat, Sibsagar and even Imphal. Closer collaboration, not more isolation, is our real need.
In an age when the world is increasingly coming closer together, what will others think of us if we break further apart? I think of Utter Pradesh which has a population of around 200 million, comprising of over 200 different people groups from various religious backgrounds, believe in staying together under one political umbrella despite their differences. On the other hand, the entire population of Nagaland is just 1.9 million—all Christians living over an area of 16,527 sq. kilometers. As such, does it make sense to break up into more pieces? Is this how we solve our problems?
Option #2. Autonomous Council: The DAN government is recommending the creation of an autonomous council. This would have the authority to administer the ENPO areas – Mon, Tuensang, Longleng and Kiphere Districts. In other words, this autonomous council would have legislative, executive and financial powers as per provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
The flaws with this proposal, in my view, are as follows: First, it fails to address the root cause of the problems, namely, the failure of the DAN government in the development of the four districts to be at par with the rest of the state. And although Delhi is still willing to pour in more funds, this will not solve the problems unless the “broken pipeline” and the “containers with holes” are repaired. Second, granting an autonomous council status will further complicate our present system of government as we will be faced with two competing executive and legislative authorities. To move away from our union is to go backward. Third, the DAN’s proposal could promote further step-motherly treatment, although the blame could be shifted. Under this arrangement, the people of Eastern Nagaland will have to depend upon Kohima in much the same way as the various Indian states have to look up to Delhi.
Option #3. Union of Equals: In my view, the demand for a separate state should not become a “non-negotiable” item. Rather we should see unity, equality and justice as non-negotiable. And this ought to be our common fight—not as Eastern Nagas versus Western Nagas, but as fellow Nagas helping one another. With this in mind, I would like to recommend the following provisions for our Eastern brethren:
1. When the Chief Minister of the state comes from Western Nagaland, the second highest office should be drawn from Eastern Nagaland and vice versa. And as a gesture of our commitment to equal opportunities, we could offer the post of the Chief Minister for the next legislative term to someone from Eastern Nagaland.
2 We should add a few more Legislative seats for Eastern Nagas, including one for the Tikhir tribe (subject to negotiation with the Centre).
3. All members of the state Assembly from Eastern Nagaland should form a Regional Committee to deal with matters relating to that region. And they should be responsible to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the working of the government.
4. We should empower Eastern Nagaland through a distributed system of devolution of power and privatization of services so that government employees may be moved closer to the people for more efficient services. Also, we should empower each village to function more like a mini-government. All these could lead to faster development and creation of thousands of jobs, especially in the private sector.
5. The recruitment to government posts in Eastern Nagaland, carrying a salary of up to Rs. 6000 a month, should be made only from among the people who have lived in Eastern Nagaland for at least 15 years. Also, the allotment of job should be based on merit plus the consideration of the least economically advantaged situation of the individual applicants from our Eastern region; otherwise, our present system of backward quota or reservation could still end up benefiting the most politically connected members of the communities.
6. The entire revenue from Eastern Nagaland should be spent on the development of that region, after having met its proportionate share of the common expenditure of the state of Nagaland. Additionally, portions of revenue generated from industries and taxes collected from urban areas should go toward developing the less developed areas in our remote places; or simply put, our cities should feed our villages.
7. The state government should develop Eastern Nagaland through a four-pronged strategy: (i) give the next five years of focused development to the Eastern region, (ii) get the Indian government to implement the “Look East Policy” via road connectivit y and international trades, (iii) produce a highly educated society with emphasis on having quality teachers as top priority, and (iv) empower NGOs as well as church organizations to invest in the building up of a better Eastern Nagaland.
Option #1. Separate Statehood: Some Eastern Nagas assume that their problems can be best solved through the creation of another state, a Frontier Nagaland. But before taking such a drastic measure, they would do well to answer these questions: Does this mean that all Eastern Nagas have to leave their jobs and residences in Western Nagaland? Does this mean that the Aos, the Tenyimis, the Sumis and others living in Eastern Nagaland must evacuate too? What if our intermarried couples and their children dislike the idea of a disintegrated Naga family? What if some people of Kiphere see a better future with their Western brethren in view of their proximity to Kohima or Dimapur? What if the Tikhir tribe decides not to join with the other six tribes? What if the present government of Nagaland opposes the separation? And what if Delhi decides not to create one more state for the Nagas? If any of these things gets in the way, the six tribes could be left hanging in a limbo and this could put them further behind others.
Although the grievances of the Eastern Nagas are genuine, the basis of their demand is weak and shaky. It is neither grounded on a different racial commonality nor supported by a different religious faith. Their demand is only based on developmental, social and political grievances which can be easily corrected.
As members of the same Naga family, we must stand together or else we will all fall together. For example, a further split in our family will further complicate our struggle for a common Naga future. A formation of another state under the Indian Constitution goes against our dream of coming together under a single political umbrella. If we become divided, the strength of our voice will also be weakened in terms of our negotiation with India or our fight for the welfare of our brethren living in Myanmar.
The idea of a separation also goes against modern trends: intermarriages are increasingly occurring among our young people and our children’s generation will prefer more social networking over some socio-political issues. My point is this: we must not make things worse for our children. On a broader scale, people everywhere are increasingly moving from rural to urban, thus bringing an unprecedented demographic change. This will also be true for our Eastern Nagas. Whether for education, jobs, business or travel, it would be in their interest not to cut themselves off from places like Kohima, Dimapur, Jorhat, Sibsagar and even Imphal. Closer collaboration, not more isolation, is our real need.
In an age when the world is increasingly coming closer together, what will others think of us if we break further apart? I think of Utter Pradesh which has a population of around 200 million, comprising of over 200 different people groups from various religious backgrounds, believe in staying together under one political umbrella despite their differences. On the other hand, the entire population of Nagaland is just 1.9 million—all Christians living over an area of 16,527 sq. kilometers. As such, does it make sense to break up into more pieces? Is this how we solve our problems?
Option #2. Autonomous Council: The DAN government is recommending the creation of an autonomous council. This would have the authority to administer the ENPO areas – Mon, Tuensang, Longleng and Kiphere Districts. In other words, this autonomous council would have legislative, executive and financial powers as per provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
The flaws with this proposal, in my view, are as follows: First, it fails to address the root cause of the problems, namely, the failure of the DAN government in the development of the four districts to be at par with the rest of the state. And although Delhi is still willing to pour in more funds, this will not solve the problems unless the “broken pipeline” and the “containers with holes” are repaired. Second, granting an autonomous council status will further complicate our present system of government as we will be faced with two competing executive and legislative authorities. To move away from our union is to go backward. Third, the DAN’s proposal could promote further step-motherly treatment, although the blame could be shifted. Under this arrangement, the people of Eastern Nagaland will have to depend upon Kohima in much the same way as the various Indian states have to look up to Delhi.
Option #3. Union of Equals: In my view, the demand for a separate state should not become a “non-negotiable” item. Rather we should see unity, equality and justice as non-negotiable. And this ought to be our common fight—not as Eastern Nagas versus Western Nagas, but as fellow Nagas helping one another. With this in mind, I would like to recommend the following provisions for our Eastern brethren:
1. When the Chief Minister of the state comes from Western Nagaland, the second highest office should be drawn from Eastern Nagaland and vice versa. And as a gesture of our commitment to equal opportunities, we could offer the post of the Chief Minister for the next legislative term to someone from Eastern Nagaland.
2 We should add a few more Legislative seats for Eastern Nagas, including one for the Tikhir tribe (subject to negotiation with the Centre).
3. All members of the state Assembly from Eastern Nagaland should form a Regional Committee to deal with matters relating to that region. And they should be responsible to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the working of the government.
4. We should empower Eastern Nagaland through a distributed system of devolution of power and privatization of services so that government employees may be moved closer to the people for more efficient services. Also, we should empower each village to function more like a mini-government. All these could lead to faster development and creation of thousands of jobs, especially in the private sector.
5. The recruitment to government posts in Eastern Nagaland, carrying a salary of up to Rs. 6000 a month, should be made only from among the people who have lived in Eastern Nagaland for at least 15 years. Also, the allotment of job should be based on merit plus the consideration of the least economically advantaged situation of the individual applicants from our Eastern region; otherwise, our present system of backward quota or reservation could still end up benefiting the most politically connected members of the communities.
6. The entire revenue from Eastern Nagaland should be spent on the development of that region, after having met its proportionate share of the common expenditure of the state of Nagaland. Additionally, portions of revenue generated from industries and taxes collected from urban areas should go toward developing the less developed areas in our remote places; or simply put, our cities should feed our villages.
7. The state government should develop Eastern Nagaland through a four-pronged strategy: (i) give the next five years of focused development to the Eastern region, (ii) get the Indian government to implement the “Look East Policy” via road connectivit y and international trades, (iii) produce a highly educated society with emphasis on having quality teachers as top priority, and (iv) empower NGOs as well as church organizations to invest in the building up of a better Eastern Nagaland.
