Dr. Somingam Mawon
As a free citizen and knowing that freedom of expression is fundamental but not absolute, I am penning down some observations on the ongoing Naga peace process related discourse. Nobody as I am, yet a proud Naga and also one among the thousands Naga harassed, not once but thrice, by the so called “Friends of the Hill People”. Needless to point fingers at the Indian security forces, for they were and are just the pawns dictated and monitored by the political leaders thousands of miles away from the land of the Nagas. Many have said and deliberated on the Naga solution particularly after the signing of the framework agreement. Since then, the NSCN under the leaderships of Assu Isak Chishi Swu and Avākharar Thuingaleng Muivah is seen as an entity, sometimes a target, where many Nagas have criticized, some constructively, on the political future of the Nagas; and more so after the demise of one of the tallest Naga leaders, Assu Isak Chishi Swu.
Well, as expected, some have expressed their narrow-minded views and tribalistic mindsets. Having read some write-ups as available in the print and social media, I am now finding it difficult to understand the meaning of “objective” in the real sense of the term. However, to target a section of people for some selfish ends is no “objective argument” at all. One of the prevailing trends in our society is the “teaching” on patriotism and nationalism after retirements from the Indian government service sectors. Such is their sense of exercising freedom of expression, but we expect the same “teaching” during their in-service years. Many times, out of nothingness, some would argue on the peace process related issue in order to assert their subjectively constructed political opinions. Thus, to even address them is a legitimacy given which they do not deserve. After the signing of framework agreement, some Naga individuals and groups seemed to have spoken “authoritatively” like they own the people’s movement. Such self-style overt avowal on the framework agreement is confusing the ignorant Naga as well as non-Naga masses about the real significance of the agreement.
In my limited knowledge and in contrary to some opinions, the recent agreement cannot be termed as “Naga Accord” for no accord can be kept in secrecy from the people. Many have argued that the content of framework agreement should be made available in the public domain. What is “framework agreement”? Framework agreement is not an accord. It is an underlying structure within which the two conflicting parties would contemplate the final details indispensable in resolving the long drawn Naga political conflict. Until the final settlement is inked, I see no rationale in publicizing the content other than those major issues which the two parties to agreement have made known to the public. Nagas by now must realize that for too long the Indian Government have played a “conditional politics” in resolving the conflict, and thus many other “stakeholders” have taken advantages and have attempted to derail the Naga peace process.
After years of political negotiation, the NSCN has signed an agreement with the Indian Government, but such agreement will be implementable only if the outcome of the framework agreement is reflected upon the aspirations of the greatest number of the Naga people. In other words, the people’s consent to the agreement is a necessity. However, we have different shades of people with different opinions and aspirations. Therefore, the complexity is whose opinions and aspirations should we consider as representing the overall interest and welfare of the Nagas and thus acceptable to us, and how should we go ahead in ascertaining the interests of the people. Referendum is one valid means to decide whether the people would accept the outcome of the political negotiation. However, it is observed that this is unlikely to take place at this juncture, as we have people’s representatives such as village chiefs’ organisations, civil society organizations, and politically elected representatives among others who are representing the Naga populace. In other words, these people’s representatives have the people’s support and thus they carry the voices of the Nagas.
Naga political groups, though not all, are the primary agent spearheading the people’s movement. Nevertheless, no political group is greater than the Naga people as a whole. In the absence of people’s support, they cease to exist as revolutionary groups, but become militant or terrorist groups. In principle, their sacrifice for the cause, and recognition and mandate given by the people made them nationalists. Had there been no Naga political groups, our political history would have been a different one. In this connection, we remain grateful to A.Z. Phizo and his contemporaries who have laid a firm political foundation for our movement. However, it is very disheartening for the younger generations, when a handful of like-minded people formed an armed group and then claim to be representing the cause of the million Nagas. Such prevailing trend devaluates the genuine Naga cause for which many brave men and women have sacrificed their lives.
Ours is a people’s movement, as it has always been; and thus people’s voices are to be heard, recognized, valued and supported. Likewise, civil society organizations have its say on the movement, unless they are formed with some vested interests. History has taught us that in any people’s movement across the globe, consultation and discussion amongst the nationalists and the people are vital in achieving their goals and aspirations. It is important that decisions should be made with them, not imposed on them.
For practical reason, unity of all is neither achievable nor doable in a diversified nation like Naga. Put quite simply, unity does not have to be uniformity. We are a family comprised of many tribes. Therefore, conflict is bound to occur because it is inherent wherever there is any form of human relations. But conflict has both negative and positive connotations. Conflict can be positive in the sense that it is only through expression of conflicting mindset that clears the path for innovation and transformation to take place in a society. In actuality, uniformity may inhibit us from realizing the creative and innovative way of actualizing our dream. What we need is the positive accommodation of differentness among ourselves so that it will act as a catalyst in unifying the divided house. We aspire for unification of all sections of Naga people. Though not impossible, it will be a herculean task as reactionaries to the cause will always be found in any political movement. Leaving aside the Naga nationalists, even the Church leaders who continue to preach forgiveness and love are among the most divided groups in our society. If Church leaders cannot forgive and forget within themselves or cannot unite the divided Church, how much can we expect from the nationalist leaders who have lived with arms for many years. No doubt, understanding on some core issues pertaining to the political movement should be there among the Naga nationalists for the love of Naga nation. In sum, unity of all is an idealistic principle which no nation can attain.
Before us, many nations have succeeded and have resolved or managed their political movements, and others are in the process of nation in the making. One hard fact was that there were always reactionary groups in all the resolved or managed political movements. Conflict of interests and ideas are prevalent across all nations, and Nagalim is no exception to this. The recent solution to the Indonesia-East Timor political conflict in 2002 is one example. In a nation like ours, a middle way between the two different schools of thought or extreme ends is always desirable.
History has taught us that in any political negotiation between the two conflicting parties, a policy of give and take has been the most practical solution in resolving the issue or conflict. Meaning of negotiation does not necessarily reflect upon the principle of “winner takes all” situation, but it has something more to do with “win-win situation”. Many experts in conflict management and conflict resolution have suggested that solution to any complex conflict should be based not only on one’s dream or aspiration but rather on the practicability or feasibility of the dream or aspiration based on the given context. If we are to go for a “zero-sum game”, then the prevailing political situation may not favor us. In other words, in my opinion, the recent framework agreement is no framework to the attainment of absolute sovereignty. And if we are to agree to disagree this, a new initiation would be required. But the big question is - are the Naga people, leaving aside the acceptance of Indian Government, ready for this wind of change. If such a change is not feasible, then the pragmatic ideas and proposal of Suisa Rungsung on the Naga future are found relevant.
On the one hand, Nagas cannot accept Article 371A or “greater autonomy” as a provision for the whole Nagas as the final solution to their political movement. On the other hand, Indian Government is unlikely to recognize Naga sovereignty (read as absolute sovereignty). Thus, a sort of compromise between the two viewpoints in the form of shared sovereignty is one feasible option available for the parties to the ongoing peace talks. At this critical juncture, justification of one’s stand on historical events, and seeding hatreds on tribal and factional lines are not the solution to our cause. Leaderships of the Indian Government have changed, and are now appeared to be sincere in their approach to resolve the protracted Indo-Naga political conflict. Like the Indian Government who now seems to understand the “otherness” or “uniqueness” of the Naga people, we also need to understand the limitations of theirs in resolving the conflict. Negotiation will come to an agreeable solution only when the two conflicting parties understand each other’s limitations. Leaderships come and go but this is not the actual issue in resolving, settling or transforming conflicts. The real concern is the availability of the political will of the leaders to amicably resolve conflicts.
If Naga nationhood is respected and constitutionally recognized by the Indian Government, it will not be unwise on our part to redefine the concept of sovereignty. However, this does not mean to say that the demand for sovereignty would no longer be found relevant after coming to agreement between the two conflicting parties. Instead, it can be a process; it is a matter of how it is to be written in the accord. In principle, the Indian Government has no “political right” to seal the demand for Naga sovereignty because they are two different people with different histories. Political situation has changed, and will continue to change. Resolution to Indo-Naga political conflict is no endgame to the Naga movement, as we are yet to begin dialoguing at the highest level with the Myanmar Government. My humble submission to Naga nationalists and people’s representatives is that we should get what is achievable now, and what is not achievable now should be left to the future generations. However, these are just my opinions. No doubt, leaders of the nation will decide what is best for the people. I should like to end by saying that there is no nation that remains static, but evolves keeping in pace with time and space. Change is the only permanent thing!
The author is currently a Firebird Foundation Fellow
