The ongoing Nagaland situation has spurred various reactions. While there is recognition that the turmoil encapsulates many issues, there is also a pressing need to connect it with broader questions. In particular, the Naga Mothers Association, the Joint Coordination Committee and the Nagaland Tribes Action Committee have all taken refuge in the Constitution of India as their primary reference to strengthen their respective positions. This step is a critical departure from the Naga political discourse which has consistently asserted the position that Nagas never accepted the Constitution of India, nor consented to be part of the Union.
This radical departure raises the broader, and, perhaps, more fundamental concern regarding the Naga political question. More specifically how will this position reflect on the Naga people’s present, as well as, its future relationship with the Indian State.
Sanjoy Hazarika, points this out in his article entitled, Going Beyond the Gender Divide in Nagaland, when he states, “It is significant that Naga groups, which once contested the constitution and the very concept of India and their accession to it with arms, are now using this foundational document to contest each other’s views of rights as enshrined therein.”
In fact, the Joint Coordination Committee and the Nagaland Tribes Action Committee took this one step further when they sought protection under Article 371 A, a special provision based on the Sixteen Point Agreement.
In modern Naga political history, the Sixteen Point Agreement between the Naga People’s Council and the Government of India in 1960 remains a contested issue. BN Mullick, former chief of the Intelligence Bureau and personal secretary to Jawaharlal Nehru, is reported to have said that the Agreement was a ‘political trap.’ In effect, the Agreement was to establish India’s political legitimacy over the Nagas, and to deny the Naga people’s right to decide not only their form of government, but also the right to decide who should govern them. Lima Imchen refers to it as a “form of internal colonialism” in The Nagas: People Without a State.
Kumar Sanjay Singh points out that the Sixteen Point Agreement which created “Nagaland State” was to divide the Naga polity and society by separating their lands into different administrative units. Consequently, the Agreement and the “special provisions” under Article 371 A are applicable only to a limited Naga population based on territorial divide. Kaba Daniel in Politics of Nationalism: Insider’s Views of pan-Naga Ethnic Community’s Nationality Question in Ethnic Boundary Line identifies glaring examples of how the Agreement failed, for instance, the immediate transfer of Nagas from the Ministry of External Affair to Home Ministry in 1972 was in clear violation of Point 2. He adds that, “implementation of other clauses especially from serial Eight to Fifteen are glaring failures example of the agreement.”
Furthermore, the Agreement created a cleavage between the “overgrounds” and “undergrounds.” The perception that the Sixteen Point Agreement failed to embody Naga political aspirations and rights formed the basis for its rejection. Subsequently, this contributed to the ongoing political struggle.
The irony is that the Naga civil society groups have sought refuge under it given the conflicting and contradicting views of the Sixteen Point Agreement and the inherent limiting character of Article 371 A.
The decisive steps taken by the Naga Mothers Association, the Joint Coordination Committee and the Nagaland Tribe Action Committee have raised new dilemmas and practical considerations in the broader political discourse. This will have implications on present and future political negotiations between Naga national political groups and the Indian State. Now deliberate dialogue is urgently needed more than ever to address the broader questions that have arisen from the present turmoil.
Nandita Haksar incisively names the dilemma when she asks, “Is the Centre using the women quota row to influence Nagaland's political future?” She goes on to say that these challenges require “much deeper thought and political imagination,” and the need for “the Naga nationalists leading the movement for self-determination to urgently understand this.”
