Dr. Somingam Mawon
With all humility, I am inditing some lines with the hope that it will clear the air on what I have penned in my rejoinder to Thepfulhouvi Solo and now to Iralu’s ‘Clarification’. I respect Iralu, not because of his association with the NNC but because of his works such as Nagaland and India: The Blood and the Tears. This, however, is not to suppose that I subscribe all the views mentioned in the book. I have a feeling that I am being misjudged by him, his words such as “your leaders” speak of affiliation of which I do not have and thus far from truth. Over time, I have had many debates and arguments with the party Iralu had mentioned in his clarifications; and at times, it did not end up very well. I, as a Naga, speak my mind on my own behalf and on behalf of those Naga people who share the same thought. Every Naga has the right to ask any political groups on why the movement has protracted for such a long period of time and why political groups have given more importance to building factional accusations and counter-accusations than in bringing a logical conclusion to the movement.
I am aware of the Naga Yehzabo, and I ain’t misread it. It is simply a question of difference on how we view the territory of the Nagas. We are aware of the fact that all Naga political groups have Yehzabo of its own even though the NNC was the first to draft and adopt the said constitution. Moreover, each group has a clear defined territory as its geographical area. Concerning the territory of Nagaland, nearly thirty years before the adoption of the said Yehzabo, the Naga Club had roughly mapped out the Naga regions which were to be included in the supposed Nagaland. Iralu as an NNC Kilonser (see “Clarification No. 1”) says that the defined territory in the Yehzabo is NNC territory. Solo (based on his sentences like “Muivah has rebelled out of NNC territory, he has no say in the political affairs of Nagaland State territory”, and “Muivah is Naga from Manipur and can have a say for that State but not for Nagaland”) argued that the present Nagaland state is the “NNC territory”. On the line of the above statements, I have given my argument on the concept of “NNC territory”.
I, however, would also argue that the territory or land belong to the Naga people and are the ultimate owner of the land. Political groups survive so long as it serves the purpose of its existence. Political groups and leaders come and go, but the territory of a nation remains. Territory or land of a nation does not belong to any political group or entity. Otherwise, it would be a statement that resembles the claim of the Indian National Congress which said: “Indira is India, and India is Indira”. Within my finite mind, I would say that undoubtedly for many years, the Naga political groups have been the main agents spearheading the Naga self-determination movement. We, however, cannot deny the fact that there are other agents (or stakeholders) such as civil, political and religious groups that are integral to this struggle. In essence, no political group is above the people; they exist because of the mandate given by the people and such mandate is not a permanent one or would last so long as the political groups exist in the interest of the people.
The issue of Nagaland state came up in my rejoinder because of the use of certain words by Solo, such as “only the citizen of territory” (also re-read the above-mentioned quotes), to which I countered. I neither support nor defend the creation of the “India puppet state of Nagaland” or “puppet Nagaland State of India” (in the words of Iralu and others) by the Naga People’s Convention (NPC) in my rejoinder. It was my argument with Solo that Nagaland state was created by the NPC, and thus it was not logical to say that such was the territory of the NNC. Many Nagas viewed that the submission of the Sixteen Point Agreement by the NPC and the carving out of Nagaland state had hampered the movement of the Nagas. And this occurred at the time when the NNC under the leadership of A.Z. Phizo had the mandate of the Naga people. On the line of Iralu, I would say that it did sabotage “Phizo’s meeting” and the credential of his party at that given point of time. In essence, the “go-between” seemed to have taken the role of “negotiator”. There are Nagas who have defended the carving out of Nagaland state, but I am not one among them.
The infamous Shillong Accord has always been a bond of contention among the political groups and this, consequently, has led to a major division among the Naga people. As the President of the people’s mandated political group and the tallest Naga leader at that given point of time, A.Z. Phizo had the obligation to clear up his stand on the said accord no matter who architected it. I was asked “to state the portfolios of the NNC signatories of the Shillong Accord”, but I am not interested in such argument. Section 1 of the Shillong Accord read: “The following representatives of the underground organisations met the Governor of Nagaland Shri LP Singh representing the Government of India, at Shillong on 10th and 11th November, 1975”. As found in some written literatures, Kevi Yallay who was the younger brother of Phizo was the chief architect of the accord, and was also one of the signatories. Here is my problem, why did the President not condemn the Shillong Accord even after knowing that the signatories of the accord have signed at the behest of the NNC, which he headed? What were the reasons for the President to turn down the “requests” to condemn the accord made by his fellow NNC leaders? Many hold the view that his silence on the given accord was itself a message - a message of no condemnation to the Shillong Accord. Had Phizo condemned it, there might not have factional ramification within the NNC, or for that matter, the formation of NSCN and subsequently several factions within the NSCN. In other words, the political history of the Nagas would have been a different one. I would like to mention here, though not much related to this exchange of words, that the bringing in of the concepts like ‘heredity’ and ‘kinship’ in the echelon of political groups is no new phenomenon in the Naga context.
I am aware of the book written by W. Shapwon entitled The Illegal Formation of the NSCN, a book written from the NNC perspective, as the title itself speaks of that. I would beg you to get hold of the book written by S. A. Shishak entitled The Nagas: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, a 413 pages book written mostly from the NSCN perspective. As much as Shapwon attempted to build arguments against the formation of NSCN, Shishak argued against the NNC in favor of the relevance of the NSCN. I would only say that in both the works much has been said on their party stands, and too little has been said on the real designer of the issues like Nagaland statehood and Shillong Accord. My argument is this: the concern party would not be the one to decide the reliability and authenticity of the historical and political events related to the self-determination movement, and thus it would be wise to leave that to some nonpolitical entity to study the claims and counter-claims of the political groups.
