An impartial space where face-saving solutions can be attained
The purpose of exercising Naga sovereign rights remains the singular means for Nagas to restore dignity and respect as a people. Along with this, the Naga way of life and well-being are constantly challenged by the ‘other’ everyday issues such as: basic infrastructure, primary health care, food security, systemic corruption, procedural democracy, self-sufficiency, employment, poverty, economic policy, entrepreneurship, customary practices, jurisprudence and criminal justice system, land ownership, oil and natural resources, and so on. This is mainly caused by the presence of competing systems which also exposes the less than adequate social, economic, political and customary and legal systems and infrastructures.
Understandably, these very conditions of life in Naga society usurp all individual and collective energy to have some semblance of normalcy resulting in a perpetual state of disrepair and disintegration. Invariably, the existing tensions take away from efforts that focus on the core issue. Historical experiences indicate that the Naga discourse has been largely centered on the core issue of Naga sovereignty. At the same time the ‘other’ issues are being relegated to the margins with the false assumption that resolving the core issue would address the ‘other’ issues as well as the core issue. This assumption is proving to be costly since addressing how to adequately meet the issues of everyday needs are not given priority. Naga people’s rights are compromised in this environment where militarization, corruption, parochialism and armed conflict are common place. These conditions have consistently limited the language of peaceful settlement over the ‘other’ issues.
The disconnect in addressing the relationship between the core issue of Naga sovereignty and the ‘other’ issues is reducing the possibilities of evolving a comprehensive framework that would enable simultaneously addressing both the core and ‘other’ issues in a planned and effective manner. The various Naga initiatives undertaken to address this diverse array of issues reveal the absence of a dynamic inclusive internal process that can contextually dialogue and explore possible solutions.
An inclusive mechanism which can facilitate a process that is internal, contextual and relevant to the Naga discourse is crucial for re-defining issues, identifying and prioritizing problems, democratize space to receive and exchange ideas, analyzing information and recommending solutions, evolving campaigns and coordinating its implementation. And most importantly, it needs to provide an impartial space where face-saving solutions can be attained.
For the Nagas, besides addressing questions of political rights and reconciliation, an inclusive mechanism is essential towards constructively addressing issues of territory, factionalism and tribal expediencies.
