Moa Jamir
When Isak Chishi Swu died last year, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi led the nation in paying tributes to the departed NSCN (IM) President saying he will be “remembered for his historical role in bringing out the Framework Agreement for Naga peace.” He was interred with honour and pride.
Shaped by the circumstance and rule of the game, for his once fellow traveler and comrade turned rival – SS Khaplang, the Chairman of NSCN (K), a group under India’s proscribed list, such reverence became a luxury and highly contentious. Consequently, when the Chief Minister of Nagaland Dr. Shürhozelie Liezietsu offered condolences to the departed Chairman, it ignited a flurry of accusation.
A TV news channel known for populist rhetoric with selective outrage, and often accused of ideological proclivity towards the majoritarian worldview, currently on hypernationalistic fervour was not to be left behind. The Chief Minister’s ‘note,’ thus, became a highly inflammatory political statement from its vantage point. Never was a document, and surprisingly from the peripheral, so scrutinised and dissected verbatim to prove its one-sided point. Ironically, its point-by-point analysis of the ‘note’ started with timeline when the ceasefire between the NSCN (K) and Government of India (GoI) was abrogated in March 2015, completely disregarding the complex Naga political question over the years.
Perhaps, it was pandering to the dedicated audience which it has had been astutely nurturing with highly polarised viewpoint under the stewardship of its celebrated anchor, who once allegedly advocated for building an Indian version of Guantanamo Bay for “anti-nationals.”
“With zero knowledge of the complex situation in Nagaland, it's nothing short of sensationalism news and an attempt at further distancing 'us' from 'them,” goes a comment in popular (Naga) social media platform. A Nagaland Minister in his personal capacity also defended the Chief Minister and accused “those media persons” of having ulterior motive rather than "serving the Nation to denigrate the intellect” of the Chief Minister and “utterly” misleading the nation with wrong perspective.
For the detractors, the Chief Minister’s transgression lies in describing the death as “tragic,” without bothering to check the context in which the message was conveyed. The next line read, “…considering the fact that the protracted Naga political problem is on the verge of being resolved, and the need for all different Naga political groups to come together to air our views and aspirations to the Government of India in one voice is absolutely imperative.”
The Chief Minister’s ‘note’ further informed that in consultation with the GoI, “the Government of Nagaland has been sending delegations to meet the NSCN (K) leadership in Myanmar in recent times to convince the group to re-enter into the peace process” to find an early solution to the “Naga political problem.” He (Khaplang) conveyed his willingness to have dialogue with the Government provided “issues of substance” were discussed, he added.
A line that caused further consternation among the hypernationalists was Dr. Shürhozelie’s appeal to “all grieving Nagas to resolve and dedicate ourselves to endeavour with renewed vigour and determination to find a solution to the Naga political problem which is honourable and acceptable to all stakeholders…” before the NSCN (K) leader is buried. What is wrong in the leader of a state’s call for unity and dedicate oneself to “strive for peace, harmony and well-being of the entire Naga family.” It is absurd zealotry of the highest degree. When a society is fragmented with internal strife and protracted armed conflicts, there is interplay of variety of factors which are socio-political, cultural and historical implications. Such nuances should be taken into account before any sweeping generalisation.
In her latest novel, The Ministry of Utmost Happiness, Arundhati Roy through one of the many narratives raised one important issue about life and complexity in conflict zones and the nuances often missing from the bigger picture. “The irony was- is- that if you put four Kashmiri in the room and ask exactly what they mean by Azadi, what are its ideological and geographic counters, probably they would end up slitting each other’s throats. Yet it would be a mistake to chalk down this to confusion... It’s more like a terrible clarity that exist outside the language of modern geopolitics. All the protagonists on all sides, especially us, exploited this fault line mercilessly. It made a perfect war - a war that can never be won or lost, a war without end.”
Don’t drag the Nagas into the vortex.
For any comment, drop a line to moajamir@live.com
