Robert A. Silverstein
New York, USA
My article is in reply to Imchen's response to an earlier article by me, but is not meant to address Imchen. It is meant to address anyone who has read his article. The reason that it is not addressed to him, is that his words, which I will refer to below, indicate someone who is a fanatic, an ideologue, a person who has made up his mind on an issue and is not open to any possibility that he is wrong. He uses his intelligence not to clarify issues and control his emotions, but to rationalize his emotions, to prove his emotional responses correct, even in the face of facts.
Imchen is obsessed with the idea of the Nagas having a sovereign nation of their own, and has the dream, the drive, to die trying. Imchen is determined to be a martyr, and I am confident that, if he does not start thinking objectively, he will accomplish his goal, not to get a Naga nation, but to die trying.
So this is addressed to others, those who may have the power of critical thinking, that is, the power to look at facts that may disagree with what they believe, and adjust their thinking to the facts rather than adjust the facts to their prejudices. Imchen compares the American revolutionaries to the Nagas who want to separate from India. I do not deny that the urge may be the same, but Imchen should read a book or two on the American revolution and how it was accomplished before using it as an example for emulation by the Nagas. He will find that the comparison is useless to the Nagas, as is also comparing the Naga aspirations to the French or Russian revolutions, or to many other movements that might serve as an inspiration to Imchen.
The obligation of every Naga is to look at the facts as objectively as you can, to try to see the reality of your situation rather than to see things in a way that serve your illusions and prejudices. For example, Imchen states, “We're humans after all, it's built inside our DNA to be free especially when we are forcefully subjugated.” But that sentence avoids the difficult obligation of determining what your definition of “free” is.
I have, in a number of recent articles, alleged that the people who are depriving the Nagas of freedom are not Indians or the government of India (GoI), but your fellow Nagas, those who are corrupt and violent among you. There are those, like the members of the NSCN(IM), who squeeze “taxes” out of the Naga people, who have their own standing army (in Camp Hebron), who have monopolized the talks with the GoI related to Naga nationalism, whose authority is based on the threat of violence, not the consent of the Naga people. There also are all the Naga state politicians and bureaucrats who demand bribes from their fellow Nagas to get anything done, and the Naga extortionists who threaten Naga businesses with violence if they do not pay what is demanded, all in the name of nationalism. None of these people have anything to do with the GoI except that, when the GoI gives the Nagaland government money for repair of roads, payment to teachers, and much more, the money never reaches the people who should get it, and even if it does, as with contractors, the roads still don't get repaired.
But to acknowledge all this is to admit that the major problem in Nagaland and elsewhere where there are Naga tribes (such as in parts of Manipur), is not the GoI, but other Nagas. It would demand that you take the courageous step of starting to fight these corrupt and violent Nagas. It is much easier to sit around and talk about a Naga nation, a nation which will never happen (and were it ever to happen, would still be controlled by the corrupt and violent Nagas who control their fellow Nagas now).
Imchen states that, if Nagaland tries to separate from India and the GoI forcibly tries to stop it from doing so, “people like me who have normal everyday jobs, posted away from home will pack our bags and head back home to stand with our people because our fight is genuine, our people's cries are genuine and come rain or shine or whatever assertions or assumptions are there it does not even come close to our aspirations and will to be free or to think about giving up our rights.
Be it blood, sweat or tears we will fight for it.” These are the words of an obsessed person.
His last sentence is a paraphrase from the words of Winston Churchill to the people of the United Kingdom in 1940, when they were fighting for their survival against the German Third Reich. This is the sort of fantasy that fills the heads of people who have lost the capacity to see the reality of their situation and wallow in the world of illusion.
These are the sort of words that will lead, perhaps, to Imchen's martyrdom, but have nothing to do with the Nagas obtaining a sovereign nation. Perhaps that is enough for Imchen: the dream of seeing his family and friends standing at his grave, grieving over his sacrifices for his people. These are the daydreams of young men who have not yet grown up.
Lastly, Imchen states, “There is no beating around the bush with regards to Naga Movement, if you consider it holds merit as you claimed [I stated that, when I write on the subject of Naga nationalism, I presume the merits of the Naga claims for a sovereign nation], that's the end of the story....” But that is not the end of the story.
In 1861, the southern states of my country, because they insisted that they were not being treated fairly by the northern states, a claim that had merit, withdrew from the United States of America, and for the next four years Abraham Lincoln and the northern states invaded and destroyed the south and dragged it, by force, back into the United States.
THAT IS THE ANALOGY that should focus the minds of the Naga nationalists who are, like Imchen, so anxious to fight to the death for a separate Naga nation.
You most certainly will not get your separate nation, but you most probably will get the death you so dearly wish for.
