Mazie Nakhro, PhD
The much-hyped Framework Agreement (FA), signed between the Modi government and the NSCN (IM) on 3rd August 2015 remains to be a subject of controversy.
According to the IM, the FA is a big achievement. First of all, based on India’s admission that she “recognized the unique history and position of the Nagas,” the IM negotiators argue thatthe Government of India (GoI) now acknowledges that the Nagas never really acceded to India and therefore the Naga political solution should be unique. Second, they believe that the phrase “the two entities” in the FA implies India’s recognition of the Nagas as a separate national entity in the same way India is. It is in this sense, according to the IM, the phrase “peaceful co-existence of the two entities” must be understood. Third, they argue that the GoI, being cognizant of the universal principle of democracy, now affirms that “sovereignty lies with the people.” And based on these view points, the IM insists to keep at least the Naga national flag and constitution, which is basically another way of reaffirming the historic declaration of the Naga independence on 14th August 1947.
If the IM’s interpretations are truly agreed to by the GoI, then indeed the FA should be regarded as a big achievement. But the irony is, the IM leaders themselves have given room to confusion when they publicly admitted that the two core issues, sovereignty and integration, are nolonger on the negotiation table. That aside, as to what the interpretation of the GoI would be regarding the FA is another million-dollar question,as it has also categorically ruled out any talk about Naga sovereignty and integration. What, then, is the FA all about?
Even if the FA falls short of sovereignty and integration, it might be acceptable to most Nagas provided the following requisites can be guaranteed: (1) insert in the FA document a clause that clearly states that this is only an interim agreement for, say, a ten-year period, and (2) that a UN body would serve as the third-party to hold both the GoI and the Nagas accountable to the terms and conditions of the FA. Without the guarantee of these two requisites, the FA couldbe distorted as a sold-out agreement. So, before it is too late, those who support the FA in its current form must clear some doubts from the minds of the Naga people. These doubts, or questions, are as follows:
1. Historical Inconsistency: Doesn't the FA assume that the original position of the Naga leaders of yesteryear is unattainable and therefore unrealistic today? From the standpoint of those who declared our Naga independence and sacrificed their lives in defence of it, won't it be tantamount to a betrayal?
2. Etymological Contradiction: If we go by the meaning of the normal usage, sovereignty is absolute, not divisible. Of course, two or more sovereign nations could agree to co-operate with each other as in the European Union (EU), but that doesn’t mean any nation has to become less than a full-fledged independent nation. This kind of shared sovereignty is acceptable, but that doesn’t seem to be the GoI’s intended meaning in the FA.
In my opinion, in a desperate search for a solution, both Nagas and the GoI are trying to invent a new meaning of sovereignty. But while many Nagas are interpreting the phrase “shared sovereignty” in a way that suits their own preconceived ideas, the Indian side is obviously interpreting it in a totally different way. Realizing that the Nagas are very attached to the idea of sovereignty, the GoI seems to be cleverly keeping word “sovereignty” but adding the word “shared” to qualify it at the same time. For the GoI, this additional word seems to be the “umbilical cord” to keep the Nagas tied under the existing territories and union of India. As for the so-called sovereignty, the GoI is only meaning more autonomy to the Nagas. In a way, this could bean upgraded version of the 16-Point Agreement with Article 371(A). In other words, the new concept of a shared sovereignty in the FA is merely a domestic autonomy in the form of a devolved power to the Nagas. And this is no different from what Pandit Nehru said in the late 1940s: “We can give you complete autonomy but never independence.”
So, we must ask: would India agree to share her sovereignty with the Nagas as an independent nation? Very unlikely. My suspicion is that India will always see her sovereignty as indivisible and hence absolute. Forget about sharing her sovereignty, she wouldn’t even have the guts to announce such a thing. Otherwise, why would she be so hesitant about recognizing the Naga national flag and constitution?
3. Content Problem: Although I could be wrong here, my suspicion is that the FA may get us into giving away our rights on matters of our own Defence, Currency, and Foreign Affairs. Assuming these possibilities, let me ask some pertinent questions: If Defence is given up to the GoI, where is the guarantee for our peace and security? If Currency is to be decided by the GoI, won't that make us economically dependent on India? If we surrender Foreign Affairs to India, doesn't that take away our freedom to choose other nations as our friends? In the event of India having full decision-making power on Foreign Affairs, won't this result in cementing the artificial boundary between Myanmar and India? Won't this jeopardize our future trade relationship with China and other countries? Isn't surrendering all these rights of ours to the GoI contradictory to the idea of a shared sovereignty?
4. India's Undependability: Can the GoI be trusted? We all know the answer. The fact is this: to a simple Naga, shared sovereignty sounds like a 50/50 sharing of opportunities, power, and resources between two equal partners. But the sad reality is that India will always take unilateral decisions on all matters of her national interests without any concern about what the Nagas may say. Yes, on paper the GoI may say that we will have equal access to everything, but its so-called democratic system and parliamentary decision-making process may not allow anything to happen in our favour.
In other words, shared sovereignty can never be practically possible. It will never be fair because it could become like an ant being tied to a wild elephant. That's why those who hold onto the original NNC’s stance still insist that the Nagas must have political tie to India clearly off, although socially and economically we must all coexist as friends.
5. Short-Sighted Vision: The FA, in my opinion, is a reflection of our short-sighted political vision. It also seems to be a denial of God's plan for us. After all, isn't our Naga political future as a God-given birth right in the hand of God? If the GoI, like powerful Pharaoh, refuses to let us go, does that mean we should settle for something less? Should we decide our national fate now based on the argument of contemporary realities? Should we lose faith in the capabilities of our upcoming generations?
