“Sovereignty” is one such term that has defined so much of modern Naga history, their psyche, their economy, their governance and almost every facet of their lives – either directly or indirectly. I think this is one area, in which, even the most uninterested or the uninitiated can claim complete immunity from its effects. All political parties in the State claim that settlement of this issue is their topmost priority. This is an aspiration that has united the Nagas as well as now divided them. In the face of such divisions, there are claims and counterclaims. Allegations and counter allegations. In the process, the very meaning of Sovereignty often comes into question. A school of though says that the context of sovereignty has now changed, and what the Nagas had fought for – as sovereignty, during the 1950s and 60s is now no longer valid in this 21st Century. Over the decades, as the Nagas have continued their struggle against all odds, they have been swamped with numerous messages at various levels - economic, political and psychological, which are seemingly validated by underlying events, that many of the messages which are at times pure propaganda, appears to be so true. With each of such event, the divisions become stronger and wider – as each of their stand is ‘validated’ as the only correct stand.
Though the term ‘sovereignty’ may mean different things to different people at different times, it is a fact that today’s sovereign states are modeled on the Westphalian concept of nation-state sovereignty, following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This 17th century Westphalian concept of sovereignty was further consolidated by formation of the United Nations in 1945 with 51 members. Each member, a ‘sovereign’ nation-state. It will be important to note that the UN is comprised of ‘nation-states’ as members, and not necessarily of ‘nations’. Thus even as the formation of the UN in 1945 consolidated the nation-state sovereignty, it was not an end in itself, as more and more sovereign nation-states continued to be formed and the UN today stands at crossing the 200 member mark.
In contrast, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO), formed in 1991, has 61 members which claim to represent 100 million people.
International relations theorists have identified the Peace Treaty of Westphalia as having several key principles, which explain the Peace's significance and its impact on the world today:
1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination.
2. The principle of (legal) equality between states.
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.
When a people or community, within a set of geographical boundary exercises the above three principles, they can be termed as a ‘sovereign nation’.
Now, how would the Westphalian concept of nation-state sovereignty be stretched or applied if humans were to colonise the moon or Mars or some other extra-terrestrial body? Under whose sovereign jurisdiction will the moon’s colony function? Coming closer to earth, the ‘orbital slot’ at 35,786 km is rather limited. This is the only altitude at which geostationary satellites can be parked. Who controls this premium parking slot for satellites? There are already conflicts between different countries wishing to access the same orbital slots. Under whose sovereign control will it be? At present the International Telecommunications Union allocates the orbital spectrum. But countries especially along the equator are asserting their legal sovereign claim for the same. In planet earth, there is now the debate for sovereign jurisdiction of the minerals rich Arctic and the Antarctica ice continents.
Therefore is sovereignty just a vague concept which is now outdated and not at all relevant for the Nagas today? In this globalised world, is economic development a more important issue?
John Naisbitt (Global Paradox), says that economically, even as the world is becoming more and more integrated, politically, more nations shall continue to be formed. He predicts that even as there were only 51 ‘nations’ at the time of forming the UN in 1945, by 2050, there shall be 1000 nations.
Naisbitt describes the political and economic imperatives underlying the break-up of the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, as well as the push for national sovereignty that has characterized such states as Andorra. While economic and technological forces have weakened the traditional nation-state, he maintains that they have strengthened, not separated people from, longstanding identities of language, culture, religion, and ethnic heritage. Paradoxically, "the bonding commonality of human beings is our distinctiveness."
With this perspective, sovereignty can said to be comprised of several layers. Each layer interacting with the other layer. At certain times, one layer may overshadow the other, but nevertheless, each layer remains distinct and different. These layers can loosely be defined as – Basic sovereignty, Medium layer sovereignty and Top layer sovereignty. Broadly, the Basic sovereignty comprises of one’s identity. How he/she is identified to the world and how the world recognizes that identity. His official nationality in the passport for international travel for example. The Medium level sovereignty comprises of a people’s ownership of land, culture and practises. The Top level is the strategic and economic layer.
Most wars are fought for control of economic resources or to protect such resources, for the top layer. The British Empire had no interest for the taking away or violating the basic nor the medium layer sovereignty of the Nagas. Their only interest was to protect and project their economic interest in the tea gardens of Assam and later on, oil. Japan joined the WWII on account of its search for oil and natural resources from other Asian countries. The war in Iraq was more about oil than terrorism. Afghanistan? One of the underlying interest is the oil pipeline from Central Asia which necessarily has to cross Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has one of the largest American air base for American interest. American has 50,000 troops in S.Korea and occupies a whole island in Japan. But Korea and Japan are still considered sovereign countries. In all of these cases, the common thread is not to impose citizenship of the occupying power, but to protect and to expand its top layer sovereign interest.
Of the three layers, Nagas were exposed to the top layer only recently. But we are still not fully aware of the same nor its implications. But as the top layer has been thrust upon us through the introduction of the monetary system and other global events, we are often made to be confused by the same. After much struggle and bloodshed, India has condescended the Nagas with a semblance of medium layer sovereignty through Article 371A. But it retains its ironclad hold on our basic sovereignty. This is the core issue for the conflict. Basic sovereignty layer and medium layer were the ones practised by the Nagas from generation to generation. Nagas were not at all aware of the economic dimension of nationhood and perhaps not even bothered too much about it. Though without any formal (written) treaties, the Nagas practise of sovereignty fully fulfilled all the three key principles of the Westphalian concept of sovereign states. The Naga people therefore, instinctively understood and rose up as one without much explanation required, when they saw their basic sovereignty being threatened.
Of all the three layers, the top layer is perhaps the one which Government of India should be interested in. This is the layer, which is most amenable to negotiations and a settlement. The concept of shared sovereignty is applicable on this layer. In many economic and infrastructure areas, this has actually already become a de-facto, and some of it are actually necessary for development. The European Union with a single monetary system is focused mainly in this layer. For Indo-Naga settlement, this can include economic, defense and strategic arrangements. Therefore, identification of common interest layer and to work on this, shall be crucial to breaking the stalemate.
The British did not insist that Indians were British even at the height of the imperial power. American military presence in Saudi Arabia, S.Korea, Japan and across the world does not violate the basic and medium layer sovereignty of the host countries. Can not India and the Nagas come to a similar agreement? The Common Wealth Games to be held in Delhi is a good example of such an understanding. Other than being once under the British Empire, what does all the countries participating in the CWG have in common? But by having the Common Wealth umbrella, Great Britain continue to have some influence on the top layer sovereignty, no matter how tenuous.
Occupying powers usually projects only the ‘purest’ and the best of intentions for sending their military. Americans called their war in Iraq as “Iraqi Freedom” and killed thousand of innocent Iraqi civilians in Iraq. Queen Empress, on assuming the title “Empress of India” at the proclamation Durbar Delhi 1st January 1877, had a beautiful message for their Indian colony;
“We trust that the present occasion may tend to unite in bonds of yet closer affection ourselves and our subjects; that from the highest to the humblest all may feel that under our rule the great principles of liberty, equity and justice are secured to them and that to promote their happiness to add to their prosperity and advance their welfare are the ever present aims and objects of our empire”. (inscribed at the Queen Victoria Memorial Hall, Kolkata).
That being the case, even AFPSA, the inhuman Act, operation in Nagaland, most of the Northeast and Kashmir, is described by its proponents as an Act to protect the people. We should therefore not be surprised by the Assam Rifles calling themselves as “The Friends of the Hill People” but by not describing themselves as “The Best Friends of the Hill People”.
Slavery, which directly impinged on the basic and medium level sovereignty of a people, were only the means to achieve the top layer economic interest of the colonial powers. Much of the world’s great powers has now realized that the old world order of slavery for cheap labour, wars and military conquest for resources and markets, are not the first nor the best option to achieve their economic interest. They have now fine tuned their methods through other more effective and other subtler means. India already knows this fact. It also knows that over the decades, political maps of countries can change and has changed. But it is locked in a mutually assured destruction embrace in Nagaland, Northeast and Kashmir. It needs to find a way out in the interest of all parties concerned.
Thus at this juncture we Nagas need to talk with India with one voice. But if we continue to be confused and refuse to reconcile with each other, and if the current Naga reconciliation process is jeopardized due to our own egos, I am afraid we may have to forget about wining our basic sovereignty for about another generation or so, as internecine blood flows once again. It will only be a win situation for the Government of India. If so, our national workers may unwittingly become themselves the obstacle to achieving Basic Naga Sovereignty for which they claim to be fighting for. Another paradox. Can we save ourselves from this self-defeating paradox?
Er. Moa Aier.
Nagarjan. Dimapur.
