(A response to their recent press statement)
K Puroh
The Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN), in its recent press statement, has raised concerns about the state of the Naga political issue. It alleges that the State Government's stance is undermining the pending negotiations and adversely affecting the social, economic and political life of the Nagas. The CNFN further argue that the prolonged ceasefire, (initiated in 1997 during Chief Minister S. C. Jamir's tenure) has contributed to Nagaland's continuing backwardness in almost every sphere.
This argument, however, appears to confuse symptoms with causes. A ceasefire is not, by itself, the source of backwardness. The more fundamental question is why, after decades of negotiations, the Naga political issue remains unresolved, and why the Naga people have been unable to arrive at a common political position acceptable to all concerned.
The CNFN has also described the Nagas as "Gullible” a terminology that is not only unfortunate but demeaning to a people who have endured decades of political uncertainty and conflict. If the intention is genuinely to awaken public consciousness, the language should inspire dignity and responsibility rather than ridicule those in whose name the Forum claims to speak.
The Allegations
The CNFN has reiterated that political negotiations between the Government of India and Naga political groups effectively concluded on 31 October 2019. It has alleged that the State Government hampered negotiations by facilitating the removal of former Governor and Interlocutor R. N. Ravi, and that the State Government is now moving towards appointing a new interlocutor with the status of a Minister of State. According to the CNFN, this amounts to placing the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position in the "dustbin."
These are serious allegations, but they must be examined in proper constitutional and political context.
The State Government is not a negotiating party to the Naga political dialogue between the Government of India and the Naga political groups. Its role has largely been that of a facilitator and intermediary concerning matters affecting the State and its people. To portray the State Government as the principal obstacle appears to place responsibility at the wrong door.
Who Actually Holds the Key?
The CNFN appears to assume that the political ball is entirely in the Government of India's court. But this may not be the whole truth.
The more fundamental question is whether the ball is actually in the court of the Nagas themselves. The Government of India has repeatedly maintained that there can be only one political solution to the Naga issue. If that is the stated position, then the crucial challenge lies not merely in negotiating with New Delhi but in bringing the various Naga political groups together.
The existence of numerous Naga political and national organisations, more than thirty, by various counts, demonstrates the magnitude of the problem. If these groups continue to maintain separate positions, separate structures and separate claims to represent the Naga people, how can an early, inclusive and universally acceptable settlement realistically be achieved?
The uncomfortable truth is that the greatest obstacle may not necessarily be outside the Naga house. It may lie within it. Until the Nagas themselves find sufficient common ground to speak with greater unity and coherence, it is difficult to see how any interlocutor, regardless of rank, can manufacture a political settlement on behalf of the Nagas.
Who Does CNFN Represent?
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the CNFN's statement is its apparent claim to speak on behalf of the Nagas as a whole. This raises a legitimate question: Who has given the CNFN the mandate to represent the Nagas?
The Forum appears to comprise individuals drawn from different walks of public life, including former politicians, bureaucrats and other prominent personalities. Yet prominence does not automatically confer a representative mandate.
The strength of Naga society has traditionally rested upon its village institutions, tribal hohos, civil society organisations and other recognised traditional bodies. If a forum claims to speak for the entire Naga people without a clear mandate from these institutions, its claim to represent the collective Naga voice becomes open to question. It would be more appropriate for the CNFN to explain the source and extent of its mandate rather than simply proclaim itself as a representative voice of the Nagas.
The Question of Political Credibility
There is another dimension that cannot be ignored. Many members of the CNFN have themselves occupied positions of considerable political or administrative authority at different points in their careers. Some were once at the very helm of power and influence in the State.
This raises another question: If the present condition of Nagaland is as deplorable as the CNFN now describes it, what responsibility do those who previously exercised power bear for that condition?
Political criticism is legitimate and necessary in a democracy. But criticism becomes more convincing when accompanied by introspection. Those who once had the opportunity to influence governance, development and public policy should also be prepared to explain what they themselves accomplished during their respective periods of authority. Otherwise, the public may reasonably perceive the present campaign as an attempt to shift responsibility from the past to the present.
The Cart Before the Horse
The demand for an "early solution" is understandable. Every Naga genuinely desires an end to decades of political uncertainty. But an early solution is not necessarily a good solution.
The real questions are: Will it be honourable? Will it be acceptable to all concerned? Will it be inclusive? Will it preserve the dignity and identity of the Naga people? And, most importantly, will the Nagas themselves be prepared to accept and uphold it?
These questions cannot be sacrificed merely for the sake of speed. To demand an early solution without first addressing the fundamental divisions among the Naga political groups is like putting the cart before the horse. One cannot arrive at a destination simply by demanding that the journey end quickly; there must first be agreement about the road, the destination and who is travelling together.
The CNFN therefore risks barking at the wrong tree if it places the primary blame on the State Government for a delay in a process in which the principal negotiating parties are the Government of India and the Naga political groups.
The Real Challenge Before the Nagas
The Naga political issue is not merely a question of appointing or removing an interlocutor. Nor is it simply a question of whether negotiations concluded on a particular date.
The deeper issue is the absence of sufficient unity among the Nagas themselves. If the Nagas genuinely desire a political settlement, the first responsibility must be to reduce internal divisions, reconcile competing positions and create a common platform from which the people can speak with credibility.
The Government of India may appoint or change interlocutors. Negotiations may be accelerated or extended. Agreements may be interpreted in different ways. But none of these measures can substitute for the one ingredient that remains indispensable: Naga unity.
The Final Question
The CNFN is right about one thing: the Naga political issue cannot be allowed to remain unresolved indefinitely. But the demand for an "early solution" must not become a substitute for the more difficult task of achieving an honourable, acceptable and inclusive resolution.
The real question is not simply when the solution will come. It is what kind of solution will come, who will accept it, and whether the Nagas will have the unity and political maturity to own it collectively.
Until that question is honestly confronted, repeatedly blaming the State Government, the interlocutor or the Government of India may provide political rhetoric, but it will not provide a political solution. The key may ultimately be in the hands of the Nagas themselves, and until they are prepared to use that key collectively, demanding that someone else open the door will accomplish very little.
The door will not open from the outside; it will swing wide only when the Nagas themselves turn the lock as one, not as separate factions, but as a united people finally ready to walk through together into a future they have chosen to build with their own hands.
(Views are personal)
