Kaka D. Iralu
Many of our national leaders have oft and on harped on the word “national principle.” This harped national principle has been made the condition for Naga reconciliation as well as Naga Unity. But though many Naga writers have challenged our leaders to tell us the meaning of this national principle, none of them have ever replied or defined to the Naga public what they mean by the Naga national principle.
I hope that by unity or reconciliation under “The Naga national principle”, our leaders are not talking about a Naga unity or reconciliation under socialist principles or democratic principles. As far as I am concerned, the only national principle that all Nagas must unite under is the principle that Nagas are a nation and that the land of the Nagas which is 120000sq.km.belongs to the Nagas only. Any Naga civil society or even self acclaimed national organizations that have deviated or are ready to compromise on this national principle have become anti-Naga in nature and character. Therefore, any political organization or even professed national groups that has merged Naga territories with that of any foreign territory as a state or even trying to join India as a federating unit, has committed treason against the Naga nation and its national principle.
In actual fact, Nagas have always been a democratic nation in human history. This democratic nation declared their national independence on 14th August 1947. Now, in the context of nations and the declarations of their independence, provided that a nation has a record of its own national history and lands, no nation needs the consent of any other nations in declaring their own national independence. Nagas are therefore not asking their independence from India or the UN. Far from it, Nagas are only asking India and the UN to recognize their declared independence.
But as far as Naga political sovereignty is concerned, their political sovereignty has been suppressed by India when Indian troops invaded Nagaland in the early 1050’s. To quote their own words, this is how B. N. Mullick, the then Personal Secretary of Nehru and former Director of the Indian Intelligence Bureau put it: “Troops moved into Tuensang by October 1955, and the war with the Nagas started from then.” (B.N. Mullick, My years with Nehru, p308). As a result of this invasion of Nagaland, today the national flag of India flies over our lands and we have been politically oppressed by Indian troops under heinous laws like The Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 and many other similar laws.
But in spite of all these political facts and reality, when it comes to the question of our political sovereignty, our own leaders both in the Indian state as well as the national government have again and again parroted that “political sovereignty lies with the Naga people.” I therefore want to ask these Naga leaders what they mean by this statement that political sovereignty still lies with the Naga people.
Is political sovereignty some sort of gas or clouds that hangs in the air and therefore is still with the suppressed Nagas because they are all breathing this air in Nagaland?
How can we follow national leaders who are asserting that sovereignty is still with us when over two hundred thousand Nagas lie buried under our feet defending that sovereignty and the whole nation has been under Indian Military rule from 1958 to the present? Are these leaders who have already joined Naga lands to India as a state in India and others who are desperately trying again to join the same Naga lands to India under a Federal structure, trying to please their Indian masters by proclaiming false political slogans to the Naga people? After all, can the Naga nation be still enjoying political sovereignty when the very right to rule ourselves have been surrendered by some self appointed Nagas to an Indian Governor under article 371 A (b) in 1960? How can these leaders deny these implications when Article 371A (b) clearly states that “The Governor of Nagaland shall have special responsibility with respect to law and order in the State of Nagaland.?”Can we indeed still be having political sovereignty when the special responsibilities of the Indian Governor in the same section include even such sweeping powers as “… the decision of the Governor shall not be called in action on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in exercise of his individual judgment?”
