Dr Somingam Mawon
Naga society has this pre-conceived notion that bureaucrats are the source of knowledge and are skillful by virtue of possessing special knowledge, without realizing the fact that they know “something about many things” and not “everything about something”. Issues such as Naga political conflict require individuals who know “everything about something”, and not “something about many things”. In recent times, more people began to use public spaces to showcase their arrogance of stupidity by distorting and manipulating facts and truths about the cause that had claimed many lives and is still counting.
As a Naga belonging to “who is not” in the categorisation of Thepfulhouvi Solo, it is stupefying as well as petrifying to read the intent and content of the texts of this Indian bureaucrat turned NNC apologist. With much temerity, the writer tried to navigate from one edge to the other in the formulation of opinions on what he thought it was right! Some statements are outrageously ridiculous, and some others are not comprehensible. See this one, “Any Community declaring itself Naga peaceably is Naga.” Does he mean to say that a Garo community can become Naga, if the former declares itself as Naga in peace? Or, does he mean to say that Naga identity is a commodity that can be purchased by anyone when a customer buys in peace? Which group would decide the nature of peace in the determination of granting or rejecting from becoming a member of the Naga society? Indeed, a ridiculous statement it is to me.
In one of the lines, he wrote: “the NNC was for Pan Naga of the Northeast and Burma. The Organization included any Naga Community joining it democratically.” There is no such lexicon as “democratically” in the political vocabulary of Naga political groups since the time of A.Z. Phizo. One way or the other, all factions are dictated by some leaders and thus the question of democracy in the real sense of the term does not arise.
See this one, “Muivah has rebelled out of NNC territory, he has no say in the political affairs of Nagaland State territory.” Which territory is Thepfulhouvi talking about, or who drew such territory? Having read more than 100 books and articles on Naga politics available in the public domain, I came across no NNC territory in the political history of the Nagas vis-à-vis Naga political movement. It is not my intention to demean the contribution made by the NNC in the Nagas’ struggle for her political independence. Generation in, generation out, any politically conscious Naga would appreciate some very important events initiated by the NNC such as signing of Nine Point Agreement, declaration of Naga Independence, and Plebiscite of 1951 among others. However, there is no such thing called NNC territory in the Naga vocabulary.
By the way, Nagaland state territory is no territory of the NNC. Why is that? A little bit of understanding historical events will clear this air. Long before the formation of NNC, the Naga Club in 1928 had mapped out the Naga regions, which were to be included in Nagaland, as found in their memorandum to the Simon Commission. In other words, the Naga Club had in mind that all Naga areas in India should be under one administration. And the NNC reaffirmed such goal of bringing all Naga areas under one unified administrative unit in the Nine Point Agreement (June, 1947). Subsequently, the Sixteen Point Agreement was arrived at between the Naga People Convention (NPC) and the Government of India in July 1960, which also succinctly indicated single administration of Naga areas. The point is, it was NPC and not NNC that brought the statehood of Nagaland. Linked to this agreement, it is still fresh in minds that some NPC leaders were assassinated by the NNC, as the later fought for a solution nothing less than sovereignty. Here, thus, is my question: is it logical for the NNC to claim Nagaland state brought about by the NPC as its territory? Only an insane individual would say, yes it is logical.
Thepfulhouvi also wrote, “The Parliament of India even does not interfere in the customary traditional practices of Nagaland.” His intention was that even the Parliament of India cannot interfere us, then, who is Muivah to interfere in any matter that concerns the state of Nagaland. Indian Parliament cannot interfere in the “customary traditional practices of Nagaland” because of the Article 371A as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and this article is the creation of both the efforts given by the Government of India and the NPC. In other words, such constitutional protection was given to the Nagas of Nagaland state after the signing of Sixteen Point Agreement by the NPC with the Government of India. As an apologist of NNC, Thepfulhouvi should know that his party, in the first place, was against the NPC who drew the “territory” which he has been talking about for long. Moreover, where should one place the principle of NNC in the words like “only the citizen of territory”?
What about this one, “But Muivah fearfully and violently created a separate Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland – NSCN – with Barrel of the Gun in opposition to the NNC.” Before the birth of NSCN, there was this infamous Shillong Accord of 1975. Who signed the imposed accord in the name of NNC? Definitely, it was not A.Z. Phizo (President), Isak (Foreign Secretary and later became Vice President), or Muivah (General Secretary) who were on foreign mission for the NNC, and not for their individual vacations or tours. Section 2 (i) of the Shillong Accord of 11 November 1975 signed between the Government of India and the NNC read: “The representatives of the underground organisations conveyed their decision, of the own volition, to accept, without condition, the Constitution of India.” Many cadres such as Muivah and Isak opposed the accord, and such opposition was soon followed by the launching of operations and coup d'état by the Indian security forces and the Naga cadres who accepted the said accord. Many Nagas were killed in the aftermath of the signing of Shillong Accord. The killing field of Langnok on September 27, 1980 was one such instance, which is today observed as ‘Agony Day’ by the NSCN. ‘General’ Thongpo Pangmi, the then “C-in-C of Naga Army” was one among the many victims.
Was five years (1975-1980) of waiting too brief for A.Z. Phizo to respond vis-à-vis Shillong Accord at the time when many parts of the Naga areas became hunting grounds and killing fields in the aftermath of Shillong Accord? No, it was not. It was the NNC signatories (Shillong Accord) and the agents behind them, and the intentional silence of A.Z. Phizo that had forced Muivah, Isak and other cadres to disown NNC and to form a new political organisation. Was it rationale for Muivah, Isak and others not to oppose the NNC in the name of Naga unity even when the Section 2 (i) & (ii) of the Shillong Accord vividly mentioned that they would surrender their arms and accept the Constitution of India unconditionally? If yes, where would anyone place the NNC catchword “nothing less than sovereignty” in this imposed accord? Nowhere! Indeed, the said accord buried the long cherished goal of “nothing less than sovereignty”. We are now in the 21st century, and that it is forty-two years away from the bloodshed of the opprobrious Shillong Accord.
From the statements like Muivah is “a fake democrat, un-trustable violent person and a man whose hand is dirty with innocent blood”, we could sense the ill-feeling of Thepfulhouvi towards Muivah, and is definitely a statement of a sick mind and not of a learned one. There are many lines in the writing of Thepfulhouvi that require clarifications and justifications. Some statements are contradictory in nature, and thus nullifying his main argument. In essence, the intent is not reflected in the content of the texts.
