I am first tempted to misquote; “If a woodchuck would chuck wood, how much wood would the woodchuck chuck” into “If the NNC is repeatedly abused/misused, how much damage done on the NNC can impinge on the Naga politics”? The only point I am trying to draw from this quotation is to surmise whether we can stop the NNC (Naga National Council, as it originally is) and move the Naga politics on to a definitive destination.
Perhaps more is talked of the NNC and less is known about it. Perhaps till such time we discern what exactly ‘NNC is’ and what ‘it is not’, the dispute over the sanctity and legitimacy of the NNC vis-à-vis Naga politics, will continue to haunt the minds of many. Indeed ‘dead man tells no tale’ and unless the livings tell there will be no tale for the future generation. Given the fact that there are incoherent interpretations on what the NNC is and is not, what is attempted here is simply to translate (not interpret), as close as possible the philosophy (not the historical recitation) of the NNC as a political entity and to highlight the ingrained conviction of ordinary people (not the conflicting version of political groups).
Notwithstanding the cosmetic appearance painted now and then, for or against, what the NNC ‘is not’ is not really what certain group tries to claim or disclaim. Surely interpretation on the NNC, whichever way cannot become a monopoly of or left to such section alone. For all we know, the emergence of the NNC preceded far before the subsequent emergence of underground governments and factionalism. In simpler words nationalism predated groupism/factionalism. The NNC, as it was from its inception, is then none of these – political organization, type of government, faction, regional/tribal organization etc. In short, what the NNC is not is what the people-in-struggle are not.
To be exact, the NNC is a movement – a political movement of the Naga people en mass to liberate themselves from further political bondage. This mass movement started on the political foundation, still propagated today that (a) Nagas are distinct race of free and independent people, (b) who desire to live with others in peaceful co-existence as equals; thereby (c) asserting their political right through democratic process and dialogue. The historic plebiscite of 1951 was the ultimate demonstration of the people’s aspiration through democratic and constitutional exercise. It was not stirred by any political organization or conducted by any established institute or pioneered by any regional/tribal hoho. The strength of the movement sprouted directly from the politically awakened people of the pre and post World War II era. If another name should be designated to the NNC it ought to be called The People’s Movement. The NNC therefore, merely personified the united movement and nationalism of the Nagas; it was rather a unified reincarnation of the otherwise sovereign Naga polity. Once the movement became institutionalized the NNC assumed a type of political institute without deviating from the inbuilt political principles mentioned earlier. These basic principles are still upheld by all the factional groups irrespective of professed differences with the NNC.
NNC was the sole and first institute which imparted the earliest political socialization to the Nagas and what was gradually imbibed in the minds by everyone- young and old, became their religion, education, occupation, destiny and most importantly their ultimate principle. While other things including their history might have changed with the changes of time, the last (principle) definitely have lasted unaffected. This principle has become more than plain politics; it has become a thing of conviction, an integral part of conscience and an identity which is being manifested everywhere every time Naga problem is mentioned. As a matter of fact, with the passage of time and test its grip has deepened more towards personal and racial attachment than merely political attachment. Humanly speaking, it is in their blood.
Indeed it has to be admitted that NNC as a people’s movement has rippled out to divisive factionalism because of undesirable factors and forces. That way factionalism has more or less superseded nationalism. Even so, the relevance of the NNC still exists for reason that the principle remains the driving force of the people-in-struggle, whether politically or psychologically. If this is not so, what then is the basis of the unending political assertion or demand? Mainly for reason that someone had signed the infamous Shillong Accord does not merit that the NNC should be written off as well. Many have died because of this and even those who stood against this. Many have condemned it. Yet the problem has not ended. What will happen again if tomorrow another agreement is signed by another group, similar or dissimilar to Shillong Accord but within (or added to) the Indian Constitution or Union? Can we turn back the clock of the past bloodshed and hatred?
Perhaps the biggest blunder committed was not only in the signing of Shillong Accord but it was in the disowning of the NNC itself. This appeared inevitable when NNC (later) was misconstrued as a political organization, a government and mainly as a thing belonging to certain section or group. This way it has come to be identified with or owned by few factions, whereas the other factions have come to be identified as a distinct political sect. However, no matter how hard we try we cannot overwrite the history that all political groups sprouted from the same foundation and propagated the same principles of the NNC. Although the repeated split up to several factions is being defended on the pretext that one or the other has allegedly sacrificed the movement or compromised the inherent principles the reality has been more of subjective than objective in nature. In a divided house of several no single member can claim the whole house as his own, unless his counterparts decide to renounce their right, nor can the member who renounced his right claim that he still owns the house. In our context NNC is the foundation upon which many camps have been set up, each of them claiming legitimacy over the others. Therefore, there is no logic for a single group to claim and the second group to disclaim because the house still exist and it is collectively own by all. With this understanding of the cited background it may not be out of place to say that placing the fate of Naga politics into the hands of one or two group will no less resemble the fable of ‘cart before the horse’. When it moves it will only move backward.
Having said this I am inclined to conclude that we have failed to uphold the truth; the truth that NNC is the political foundation, the personification of the people’s movement and the archetype of the un-faltered principle. And so long as our problem is political and unsettled, our history is unique and asserted and our aspiration is of the people and not of the factions, NNC will remain a reality; a reality, which cannot simply be treated as a thing of the past or a thing to be determined by one or two factions. It is also well understood that for those who did not participate in its formation or in the plebiscite they cannot be expected to share the same passion advocated by the actual participants and their descendents. The wrongs are actually those who knew and experienced the truth but are hiding behind the shadow of factional politics. Could it be possible that the reason has been on this line?; unless the very basis of the NNC is censured or the people are dissuaded from popularly supporting it the apprehension is that the type of political solution anticipated or the recent formation of Naga National Government (NNG) for alternative arrangement might not become acceptable to the mass of people. Whatever the intention or outcome, denying the legitimacy and relevance of the NNC in the Naga politics is no less making a mockery of the wisdom of the NNC founders, questioning the veracity of the people’s movement, deriding the political aspiration of the people and devaluing the priceless sacrifices made.
By saying this I do not mean to insinuate that apart from the NNC there cannot be other politics; there are state politics, party politics factional politics and now regional politics and even civil politics, all interrelated with the Naga problem. There can also be suitable solution in compliance with their respective need and demand. Any solution of problem is fine. Such solution can also become acceptable. But when we are to talk of the Naga politics, as it truthfully is, there possibly cannot be a Naga politics other than the politics of the NNC.
The bug of Naga politics stops here.
Vaprümu Demo, Kohima
Perhaps more is talked of the NNC and less is known about it. Perhaps till such time we discern what exactly ‘NNC is’ and what ‘it is not’, the dispute over the sanctity and legitimacy of the NNC vis-à-vis Naga politics, will continue to haunt the minds of many. Indeed ‘dead man tells no tale’ and unless the livings tell there will be no tale for the future generation. Given the fact that there are incoherent interpretations on what the NNC is and is not, what is attempted here is simply to translate (not interpret), as close as possible the philosophy (not the historical recitation) of the NNC as a political entity and to highlight the ingrained conviction of ordinary people (not the conflicting version of political groups).
Notwithstanding the cosmetic appearance painted now and then, for or against, what the NNC ‘is not’ is not really what certain group tries to claim or disclaim. Surely interpretation on the NNC, whichever way cannot become a monopoly of or left to such section alone. For all we know, the emergence of the NNC preceded far before the subsequent emergence of underground governments and factionalism. In simpler words nationalism predated groupism/factionalism. The NNC, as it was from its inception, is then none of these – political organization, type of government, faction, regional/tribal organization etc. In short, what the NNC is not is what the people-in-struggle are not.
To be exact, the NNC is a movement – a political movement of the Naga people en mass to liberate themselves from further political bondage. This mass movement started on the political foundation, still propagated today that (a) Nagas are distinct race of free and independent people, (b) who desire to live with others in peaceful co-existence as equals; thereby (c) asserting their political right through democratic process and dialogue. The historic plebiscite of 1951 was the ultimate demonstration of the people’s aspiration through democratic and constitutional exercise. It was not stirred by any political organization or conducted by any established institute or pioneered by any regional/tribal hoho. The strength of the movement sprouted directly from the politically awakened people of the pre and post World War II era. If another name should be designated to the NNC it ought to be called The People’s Movement. The NNC therefore, merely personified the united movement and nationalism of the Nagas; it was rather a unified reincarnation of the otherwise sovereign Naga polity. Once the movement became institutionalized the NNC assumed a type of political institute without deviating from the inbuilt political principles mentioned earlier. These basic principles are still upheld by all the factional groups irrespective of professed differences with the NNC.
NNC was the sole and first institute which imparted the earliest political socialization to the Nagas and what was gradually imbibed in the minds by everyone- young and old, became their religion, education, occupation, destiny and most importantly their ultimate principle. While other things including their history might have changed with the changes of time, the last (principle) definitely have lasted unaffected. This principle has become more than plain politics; it has become a thing of conviction, an integral part of conscience and an identity which is being manifested everywhere every time Naga problem is mentioned. As a matter of fact, with the passage of time and test its grip has deepened more towards personal and racial attachment than merely political attachment. Humanly speaking, it is in their blood.
Indeed it has to be admitted that NNC as a people’s movement has rippled out to divisive factionalism because of undesirable factors and forces. That way factionalism has more or less superseded nationalism. Even so, the relevance of the NNC still exists for reason that the principle remains the driving force of the people-in-struggle, whether politically or psychologically. If this is not so, what then is the basis of the unending political assertion or demand? Mainly for reason that someone had signed the infamous Shillong Accord does not merit that the NNC should be written off as well. Many have died because of this and even those who stood against this. Many have condemned it. Yet the problem has not ended. What will happen again if tomorrow another agreement is signed by another group, similar or dissimilar to Shillong Accord but within (or added to) the Indian Constitution or Union? Can we turn back the clock of the past bloodshed and hatred?
Perhaps the biggest blunder committed was not only in the signing of Shillong Accord but it was in the disowning of the NNC itself. This appeared inevitable when NNC (later) was misconstrued as a political organization, a government and mainly as a thing belonging to certain section or group. This way it has come to be identified with or owned by few factions, whereas the other factions have come to be identified as a distinct political sect. However, no matter how hard we try we cannot overwrite the history that all political groups sprouted from the same foundation and propagated the same principles of the NNC. Although the repeated split up to several factions is being defended on the pretext that one or the other has allegedly sacrificed the movement or compromised the inherent principles the reality has been more of subjective than objective in nature. In a divided house of several no single member can claim the whole house as his own, unless his counterparts decide to renounce their right, nor can the member who renounced his right claim that he still owns the house. In our context NNC is the foundation upon which many camps have been set up, each of them claiming legitimacy over the others. Therefore, there is no logic for a single group to claim and the second group to disclaim because the house still exist and it is collectively own by all. With this understanding of the cited background it may not be out of place to say that placing the fate of Naga politics into the hands of one or two group will no less resemble the fable of ‘cart before the horse’. When it moves it will only move backward.
Having said this I am inclined to conclude that we have failed to uphold the truth; the truth that NNC is the political foundation, the personification of the people’s movement and the archetype of the un-faltered principle. And so long as our problem is political and unsettled, our history is unique and asserted and our aspiration is of the people and not of the factions, NNC will remain a reality; a reality, which cannot simply be treated as a thing of the past or a thing to be determined by one or two factions. It is also well understood that for those who did not participate in its formation or in the plebiscite they cannot be expected to share the same passion advocated by the actual participants and their descendents. The wrongs are actually those who knew and experienced the truth but are hiding behind the shadow of factional politics. Could it be possible that the reason has been on this line?; unless the very basis of the NNC is censured or the people are dissuaded from popularly supporting it the apprehension is that the type of political solution anticipated or the recent formation of Naga National Government (NNG) for alternative arrangement might not become acceptable to the mass of people. Whatever the intention or outcome, denying the legitimacy and relevance of the NNC in the Naga politics is no less making a mockery of the wisdom of the NNC founders, questioning the veracity of the people’s movement, deriding the political aspiration of the people and devaluing the priceless sacrifices made.
By saying this I do not mean to insinuate that apart from the NNC there cannot be other politics; there are state politics, party politics factional politics and now regional politics and even civil politics, all interrelated with the Naga problem. There can also be suitable solution in compliance with their respective need and demand. Any solution of problem is fine. Such solution can also become acceptable. But when we are to talk of the Naga politics, as it truthfully is, there possibly cannot be a Naga politics other than the politics of the NNC.
The bug of Naga politics stops here.
Vaprümu Demo, Kohima
