Syo Peh Kwo
Members of human species, as individuals and as groups, contend over things that are scarce and therefore valuable and desirable, including territory, political power, opportunities etc. They also contend over matters of collective dignity, honor and respect. Conflicts around the world throughout the ages, whether waged peacefully or violently, reflect genuine and often incompatible demands of the contending parties. Psychological factors can be responsible for intensifying the conflicts, escalating distrust into collective hatred and lethal violence, compounding the task of achieving and maintaining compromised settlements. However, these manifestations should not be confused with the real causes of the conflict. It is the real issues of the conflict that must be addressed and resolved if any settlement is to be reached. In the light of this consideration, let us make a rational analysis of the protracted Indo-Naga conflict and put some cogent arguments as to what Nagas really want and what is that India could not concede. For what do they contend?
The Nagas are indigenous peoples who, for generations have been struggling for justice, dignity, freedom and peace. Basically, the problem is Naga’s resistance against India’s dominance. Simply stating, Nagas wanted to remain as Nagas and not become Indians and that was the problem. From the Indian perspective, India is the biggest democracy in the world which guarantees equal rights and status to all its citizens irrespective of race, caste, religion, etc. Accordingly, different ethnic communities had come together to form the Union of India as she attained her independence. Then, why Nagas alone, when different people with different cultures and religious practices across the sub-continent like the Kashmiris, the Punjabis, the Mizos, the Khasis, the Assamese, the Tamils, etc. had willingly joined the Indian Union without making much hue and cry? Why Nagas could not feel at home within India? These definitely are valid questions. Moreover, India claimed that she had inherited the erstwhile Naga Hills from the British. On the other hand, Nagas claimed they had never been a part of India and they wanted to remain independent when the British left the Indian sub-continent. Given the political consciousness of the Nagas, didn’t they have the right to determine their own future whether to join India or to remain independent from India? This is equally a valid question.
Now, accepting the genuineness of the needs and the perceived threats of both the parties, the contrasting responses to the problem is the area of interest for analysis. Through a mix of military and political measures and economic incentives, the government of India has tried—and failed—for years to solve the Naga problem. Naga nationalists were portrayed as renegades, misguided elements and terrorists. From a myopic viewpoint, Naga issue was deemed as a mere law and order problem. Therefore, under various legislations and black laws the Indian armed forces were given an unlimited power to take sole control of the situation. Consequently, having clothed with impunity and shielded from the view of the outside world, the Indian Army unleashed reigns of terror in Nagalim from mid 50s onward.
While the conflict is basically an identity based, the only strategy, if at all India had one in regard to Naga problem, was to crush the spirit of nationalism and let the Nagas accept forcefully the ascribed identity. Such approaches have tended to undermine efforts to address the specific grievances at the heart of this intractable Indo-Naga conflict. Seriously speaking, no Indian leadership has contemplated on resolving the issue in a democratic way. They have taken actions that only erode respect for the rule of law and human rights, while making negotiating effort even more difficult. From the Naga side, a long and violent revolt had failed to achieve the goal of political independence. Naga people have learned the futility of war which only leads to destruction of lives; violence that destroys human hopes and dreams; and breeding hatred that blinds us. Nagas realize the need for waging the conflict non-violently in a democratic way.
Notwithstanding the legitimacy to engage in violent confrontation, the cost of the conflict has far exceeded the goal. Not only the loss of more than 200,000 lives, has the conflict hampered all aspects of development thereby bringing bitter misery to the people. The conflict has caused a great loss to India too, in terms of lives, resources and reputation. And still peace eludes the area. It will not be wrong to conclude that the Indo-Naga conflict has been poorly managed by both the contending parties. The need for addressing the conflict through democratic and peaceful means has been felt eminently. Unfortunately today, Nagalim is a broken home: thanks to the selfish handiworks of the politicians, bureaucrats and Indian Intelligence, Nagas are fighting among themselves now. The shout for peace and reconciliation is often shattered by the booming sounds of gun battle. Deeply drawn in the politics of vendetta, incidence of abductions and killings among the factions has become an everyday event. The people are virtually divided between tribal lines. Many attempts by church and public leaders for reconciliation ended up in smoke. Given the history of bloodshed, the anomalies in the current cease-fire, the uncertainty of negotiations, and the tenuous relationship between the Government of India and Nagas’ factional forces, any peace initiative in the region could be a tenous one and risky as walking on a tight rope. In the wake of the ensuing peacemaking process undergoing a crucial stage, the need for defining and analyzing the issues of conflict from both the perspectives of the Indians as well as the Nagas is felt more than ever. At length, we may assert that, a one-sided and one-track approach to such intractable conflict can never sustain peace. Moreover, the dynamics of the conflict have undergone tremendous changes, entangled in the vicious cycles that solving one problem could lead to another complication, at any stage. The situation calls for a holistic approach to conflict transformation by addressing the underlying issues that generate the conflict and developing new rules of the game. As such, peacemaking can be a political process for social change. To bring about a just and durable peace, the process itself is crucially significant as to who participates, to what degree, at what stage and in what capacity. People have waged peace in the midst of war in diverse situations throughout the world. Crafting a viable peace is the work of many hands, involving different sectors of society and spanning generations. Peacemaking in countries which have seen decades of violent conflict – Latin America, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Philippines and Bougainville– they have one thing in common: People owning the process. Unless local people own the process with their indigenous capacities and help shape sustainable outcomes, peace would elude us again. Let the ill fate of the previous peace accords/agreements which failed to bring real peace in Nagalim always be reminder to us: Peace is never an idealistic dream of a perfect order, coming down from heaven; nor is it achieved by a quick fix solution to the problem. It has to be built, as Lisa Schirch envisages:
“when people take great care in their decision making to plan for the long term, anticipating potential problems, engaging in ongoing analysis of the conflict and local context, and coordinating different actors and activities in all stages of conflict and at all levels of society.”
Moreover, there should be a clear mechanism to implement the agreements reached that could create opportunities for structural changes in the governance, human rights, security and development policies as well as shape the relations between those engaged in the conflict. At length, peace is not a permanent state of happiness; nor can we define peace as total absence of violence, free from all vices. In this dynamic world of varied values and systems, peace can be seen as a change process based on relationship building. This new concept of peace called JUSTPEACE, coined by John Paul Lederach is defined as: an adaptive process-structure of human relationships characterized by high justice and low violence; an infrastructure of organization or governance that responds to human conflict through non violent means as first and last resorts; and a view of system as responsive to the permanency and interdependence of relationships and change.
Today, the public opinion too is evidently divided, misguided and ineffective to form a consensus goal in Nagaland, ravaged by the protracted war and torn by internal dissensions, assassinations and factional feud. There are people who are well settled and feel-good-to-be in India; some may want to negotiate some of the substantive issues with India, while some would just stick to the old maxim: ‘Nothing less than sovereignty’; some elements in the society who, for vested interest would prefer to let the conflict prolong and therefore, may even oppose all kinds of negotiations. Nevertheless, the general Nagas want peace in their land. I believe Nagas today value JustPeace more than anything: Peace that entails justice and restores the dignity of being a Naga. At this given situation, which of the above cited groups/categories represents the general will of the Nagas? My assertion is that Nagalim is a nation by any standard and Nagas have every right to determine their future. India has certainly paid a heavy prize for undermining the Nagas; at least, she has learned the lesson that it takes more than muscle power to make tough people like the Nagas to come to term with. Now, the question is: Provided the Nagas gained the right to self determination, what is the promise that the future Nagalim holds? How and where do we go? The NSCN (I-M), being the primary negotiating group in the ensuing Indo-Naga peace process, should come out with an open and a clear manifesto of their vision, the structure and the system of governance which could fulfill the long standing aspirations of the Nagas. On the other hand, Naga people should understand the fact that many ethnic groups in the world coexist together or form bigger and more powerful nations even as their respective identity is well maintained. They should not confine to the idea of a separate nation-state as the only answer to their quest. Here again my assertion is that, Nagas could also exist peacefully in India, or for that matter in Myanmar or with China, and still be Nagas within the system through mutual respect and recognition. The essence is that, if the case of separation is not viable, or untenable, it is far better to learn to live in peaceful coexistence than be at loggerheads. I believe both options are not in the realm of impossibility; but either way, a tough time waits ahead. The need for educating the people to understand the conflict from both the perspectives and capacitating them towards transforming the broken relationship has been greatly felt. It will be in the wisdom of the leaderships of both sides whether to face the reality and make history or fail a lifetime and leave the legacy of uncertainty to the posterity. It is my conviction that peace shall prevail in Nagalim through the ardent efforts of people across the boundary. India and Nagalim need to learn to live in peaceful coexistence. “The hope”, as John Paul Lederach says, “is rooted in the resiliency of people who, in spite of decades of obstacles and violence, keep taking steps toward peaceful coexistence with enemies.”
