Visazo Chase
Nagas have so far, stated that they had been independent from ‘time immemorial’. However leaving aside this unhistorical term ‘time immemorial’ which is fit only for fairy tales; this paper seeks to establish the historical and legal basis of the Naga nation state taking into account a few historical facts that have evolved in the twentieth century which saw the decline of colonialism and the failure of the largest democracy in the world, India, to honour the existence of the sovereign Naga nation.
The term ‘state’ has been commonly understood to have certain attributes viz., sovereignty, territory, population and government. Therefore the Nagas as a people and nation occupy a certain territory that’ is located between 25º 60´ and 27º 40´ latitude north of equator and between the longitudinal lines 93º 20´ and 95º 15´ E’.1 Having occupied this territory they were fiercely independent and also fiercely guarded it and maintained its independence until colonialism knocked at its door with its might in the nineteenth century, with the coming of the British. Yet, the coming of the British did not mean that all the Naga territories went under British suzerainty, it was only a few portion of it which became commonly designated as the Naga Hills and some of its contiguous areas. However, even these areas which came under the shadow of British colonialism were not imposed with any strict observance of European laws or total colonial mastery. The British policy was not that of imposing a European model of administration, but of establishing the rule of law for the security of colonial interest.2 As a result the Nagas still enjoyed a great deal of independence as they continued to administer themselves in their own respective traditions under British supremacy, unlike India. Thus the establishment of British control of the Naga areas was merely an arrangement of convenience.
Having enjoyed such freedom even during the colonial era and also being aware that the colonial era was coming to an end; the Nagas were also anxious to be let free, as free as they were before the coming of the British. The Naga Club, the then organization representing all Nagas under British administered Naga Hills, therefore, submitted a memorandum to the Simon Commission on January 10, 1929 which stated “……we pray that the British government will continue to safeguard our rights against all encroachments from other people who are more advanced than us by withdrawing our country from the (proposed) Reformed Scheme and placing it directly under its own protection. If the British government, however, wants to throw us away, we pray that we should not be thrust to the mercy of the people who could not subjugate us, but leave us alone to determine for ourselves as in ancient times”.3This was the first expression of the Nagas as a people and nation.
While the era of the Naga Club had passed on, the Naga national Council (NNC) came into being in 1946 taking the Naga Nation and its national rights to greater heights. In June 1947 the Governor of Assam, Akbar Hydari, negotiated an agreement with the NNC which came to be known as the 9 Point Agreement. This Agreement became a controversy as the Government of India with regard to the 9th clause, interpreted it in its own terms so as to keep the Nagas under their over-lordship. In spite of all the troubles the NNC went ahead with its banner of Naga nationalism without resorting to any form of violence whatsoever. Charles Chasie therefore remarks “Gandhi had asked the Nagas to shun the path of violence. And the Nagas did so until the atrocities became intolerable and open conflict began in March of 1956”.4 However, well before 1956 the Nagas had already made their stand clear by the declaration of independence on the 14th of August 1947, one day ahead of India’s declaration of independence; again by the Plebiscite which was conducted on May 16,1951 in which 99.9% of the Nagas expressed their will to be a nation state, free and sovereign. Therefore government of India sending her troops to occupy Nagaland can undoubtedly be termed as an act of aggression.
The Nagas under the banner of NNC, however felt that they could further strengthen their legitimate stand as a nation with the feeling that the government of India would have men of stature to understand the legitimacy of Naga nationhood. They therefore, continued their endeavour. As a result we see an example of great historical importance in the total non-participation of the first Indian general election in 1952. Bimala Prasad Chaliha, the then president of the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee, himself stated that apart from the Plebiscite, the total non participation in the Indian general election was sufficient proof of the unanimity of the Nagas for independence and the singleness of purpose. This ”obviously nullifies the allegations that the movement [struggle] was led by a few ’misguided elements’ and only ‘a handful of supporters’.” 5 Apart from the memorandum to the Simon Commission, Declaration of Independence, the Plebiscite and the total non participation in the first Indian General Election; the NNC also established the Federal Government of Nagaland on the 22nd of March 1956.
In the light of these historical facts and statements Nagaland has all the legitimate attributes of a nation and state, free and independent. Therefore the terms ’demand’ and ‘fighting for independence’ are historically and legally incorrect and irrelevant as far as the indo- Naga issue is concerned. The Nagas did not and do not demand independence or sovereignty from India but have themselves expressed and implemented their will upon themselves which is the inherent right of a nation in as much as it is also the right of India to live as a nation, free and independent. The Indo- Naga problem, however, lies in the myth that Nagaland is part of India which is bereft of historical truth. The Indo-Naga problem therefore, is the invasion of Nagaland by India and the interference by India in the internal affairs of Nagaland and the Naga problems. The honourable solution to this infernal state of affairs between the two can be brought about if India honours the legitimate existence of the sovereign Naga Nation. India’s refusal to do so would amount to the denial of the legitimate rights of all sovereign nations and states in the world.
References:
1. Kaka D. Iralu, Nagaland and India: The Blood and the Tears p.3
2. Dr. Piketo Sema, British Policy and
Administration in Nagaland- 1881 to 1947, p.22
3. Memorandum of the Naga Hills
to the Simon Commission, January, 10, 1929
4. Charles Chasie, The Naga Imbroglio, p. 36
5. A.S. Atai Shimray, Let Freedom
Ring- Story of Naga Nationalism, p. 67
