New Delhi, October 4 (MExN): The NPMHR recently concluded a talk as part of the Morung Dialogue series in New Delhi.
The second part of the talk held under ‘A transformative perspective,’ Gam Shimray, noted Human Rights activist and Secretary General, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, (AIPP) discussed the role of Human Rights principles in shedding light on the peace-process.
As per a press release from NPMHR, Shimray began by highlighting the remarkable fortitude of the resistance movement which has been able to weather more than 70 years against a much mightier State.
He observed that over the years, the positions taken by the Government of India and the Nagas stood in stark contrast.
The GoI has persisted with whittling away at the Naga position and viewing the Naga movement through the inadequate lens of security management and economic growth, Shimray noted.
“RN Ravi’s statement to a Naga students’ gathering in Nagaland that ‘if Nagas think that India will leave Nagaland then it is a mistake,’ aptly reflects the GoI’s strategy and stand.”
He added that India must realize the need to maintain a political space based on mutual respect and not one necessitated by disregard and domination of the other.
“The Naga position on the other hand, has resolutely stood by the uniqueness of Naga history, and has displayed both a willingness to understand the difficulties expressed by the GoI, and the desire to forge a meaningful relationship with the GoI…however it has also relied on political influence mustered in the pre-1997 era,” Shimray stated.
According to him, the prospects and challenges faced by the Indo- Naga peace process can be seen in the Framework Agreement, where the two entities are trying to define ideas like shared sovereignty, peoples’ sovereignty etc that have not been defined before in their histories.
Therefore, these need elaboration along with re-conceptualization of attendant ideas such as Constitution and Federalism.
He opined that, so far both entities have been found wanting in this regard: The Indian State has been founded on a weak conception of ‘State’ leading to contradictions, whereas the Nagas have not yet concretely defined the form and structure of a ‘Nation’, leading to chaos and confusion.
But societies have seen both rise and fall, and just as paradise is lost, paradise may also be regained, Shimray said, adding that we are headed for achaotic situation, “so we need to look to reason and wisdom if we are to realize the immense potential of the peace-process.”
Shimray believed that the answer lies in being able to translate the general idea of sovereignty, and instantiate it into particular existence and reality, where sovereignty is found in the local and is protected for every individual as their rights, as seen in the Universal Human Rights standard.
This is much like how in Christianity, ‘the Word’ is associated with consciousness, and is the means and mechanism by which we transform the world, Shimray stated.
According to him, this reveals various misconceptions in the idea of ‘shared sovereignty’ as currently understood. “In the absolute sense, it is only God that is sovereign; and in the temporal world, the absolutist idea of sovereignty in political thinking, particularly in a democratic form of political governance, is obsolete and should be discarded”, he said.
He compared the idea of shared sovereignty to that of a zombie; still alive in the 21st century but essentially dead and obsolete.
Misconceptions are found in the understanding of ‘Constitution’, Shimray said.
Further Shimray elaborated on the basis of Naga nationhood and democracy, pointing out that it was important to take the community living among the Nagas as the basis for developing our institutions and society.
“A democratic conception of Sovereignty is a starting point: social contract and general will or the will of the people is still limited…We must fill its void to make it more complete.”
We all want a political order that is consensual in nature and this nature is reflected in our customary law and institutions, Shimray contended.
Regarding the ongoing negotiations and Naga political influence, Shimray questioned whether the emphasis on the uniqueness of Naga history alone would suffice in a situation of great power imbalance, stating that the Nagas should ask themselves “where we could find our advantages or strengths; and how best we could exert our legitimate political influence.”
Shimray recounted that in the past “we had found it by also taking our neighbors along with us on our journey.”
.JPG)
