Zhopra Vero
Kedahge, NNC/FGN
Naga nationalism was not born in a day. It has to undergo various political and historical experiences before it got the vision of a sovereign nation-state through the gradual articulation of our peoplehood. Under the timely leadership of NNC, human resources were mobilized to forge our unity, to protect our land, our culture, our identity and also to defend our sovereignty. Our national movement is not to be confused with secessionism or terrorism. We are not violating any prior agreement; we have not surrendered our land and sovereignty to anyone and fighting to reclaim them now. Rather, we are fighting to free ourselves from the occupational forces in our land and for the recognition of our sovereign right to self-determination. In standing up against modern imperial forces for our rights and honor, even against all odds, we are only doing the rightful thing.
After decades of struggle for independence, tried and tested through the barrel of the gun, the need to negotiate for a peaceful solution became increasingly pronounced. This necessity gave birth to slogans like “satisfactory political settlement” and “honorable and acceptable solution”. However, the original slogan of the Nagas was simply “independence” or “sovereignty”. Nothing less and nothing more! Sovereignty was understood in its absolute sense. It was non-negotiable. It was non-shareable. For this reason, 16 Point Agreement of 1960 and Shillong Accord of 1975 were never considered honorable and acceptable solution. The unstated assumption then was that any agreement short of sovereignty in its absolute sense was dishonourable and unacceptable. These two agreements not only brought about structural and ideological chaos and divisions but also much bloodshed amongst our own people. They were found to be inconsistent with the spirit of our national movement which were expressed in the following:
i. The memorandum of Naga Club to the Simon Commission 1929
ii. The Naga Plebiscite of 1951
However, the course of negotiation has been set for good perhaps, leaving little possibility of reverting to the former ways of violent conflict unless forced to. And so it is all the more pertinent that we must understand what would make the solution to the ongoing Indo-Naga conflict “honorable and acceptable”. I take it to mean the following:
i. The Naga struggle is a political one which needs to be addressed outside the Indian Constitutional Framework.
a. To negotiate for honorable and acceptable solution within the Indian Constitutional Framework makes no sense. By default, every citizen of India and every peoples’ group within India is equal before the law – no one is less or more honorable.
ii. The negotiation/agreement should be grounded in modern ethical framework. It means that there will be no use of threat or force, there will be no involvement of pretension or treachery and that there will be no hidden agenda to manipulate or oppress one group for the advancement or interest of another group. Forceful imposition of one’s will upon the other without any rational basis is acceptable. Accordingly, it must be based on the principle of equality, fairness and transparency.
iii. The agreement expresses goodwill towards each other. This implies that the good of both the parties will be the pursued in the long run. It should enable both the parties to move on with honor and dignity and without regrets. In other words, one party cannot walk away with all glory and benefits.
The above considerations or interpretation ought to guide both the process and outcome of the Indo-Naga conflict settlement. Such an agreement would enable the Nagas to safeguard our culture and identity and also to self-determine our future in the way we desire without external interference. It must be coherent with the original spirit which brought the Naga groups together and has driven our national movement till now.
There is one more term which has gained currency in the present time in connection to the negotiation – inclusivity. It is almost needless to point out the diversity among the Naga groups. Given our traditional past, it is next to miracle that we have developed this sense of oneness. However, we are still in the process of articulating and building our nationhood and peoplehood in the modern sense. Our unity is a divine gift which cannot be sacrificed on alter of negotiation. A negotiated agreement cannot exclude any Naga groups. The content of the agreement should be broad enough to include all Naga groups across artificial borders. Though there are inevitable difficulties owing to political elements which are international in nature, the solution should have desirable implications on every Naga group regardless of our geo-political conditions. All Naga groups have suffered for our national cause and so all the groups should have access to the fruits of the sacrifice one way or the other.
In the ultimate analysis, a negotiated political solution that does not affirm the earlier commitments and honor the blood sacrifices of yesterday can never be honorable and acceptable. The Naga aspiration for self-determination cannot be compromised under the axe of contemporary politics which is driven by sheer pragmatic or realistic considerations. Our cry for sovereignty can only be prolonged but not be obliterated by any force on earth. So God help us!
KUKNALIM!
