Robert A. Silverstein
New York , USA
In The Morung Express dated November 23, 2016, Dr. K. Hoshi published an article titled, “Is Nagaland a failed state.” On the same date I responded in the Express to his article with one titled, “'Is Nagaland a failed state?' YES! NOW WHAT?” In the Express dated November 30, Hoshi responded to my November 23rd article, with an article titled, “RESPONSE TO ROBERT A. SILVERSTEIN,” and I am now replying to his response.
In my November 23rd article I complimented Hoshi on the structure and substance of much of his November 23rd article, and I want to start the same way this time in relation to his November 30th one. It is lengthy and substantive, and expresses his views clearly and concisely. And although I will disagree with much of what he said, I appreciate the time and effort he put into the article. As I've written a number of articles, some published, some not, I know how much time and effort it takes to write a well-written article.
Hoshi's article consists of nine paragraphs and I will refer to those paragraphs for the clarification of Hoshi and the reader. He starts out, in paragraph one, by calling me a “realist” and trying to prepare “the Nagas for reality check in international situation.” I think that that summation of my intent is accurate. He then compliments me so effusively that, in my country, the USA, his compliment would be viewed as sarcasm: “I admire your power of observation, analysis and skill in presenting your points with force and precision BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF ORDINARY MORTALS LIKE ME.” (My emphasis, in caps.) Do I really think that Hoshi believes that the way I presented my arguments is “beyond [his] comprehension [as an] ordinary mortal [like himself]”? Does he really believe that he is an ordinary mortal, and that am not?
I don't think so. This false modesty on Hoshi's part is something to be noted, because he goes on to criticize my writing as too real, that is too like a “courtroom case,” something that he disagrees with, even resents. Can a person be to much of a “realist”? Hoshi clearly thinks so. And that is the fundamental problem with the whole Naga nationalist movement. It is not based on reality.
Hoshi goes on to state, still in paragraph one, that, “...such courtroom type argument will be worthless your efforts if the argument ends at your level. This is because of the fact that Naga FATE is not in your court.” (My emphasis.) Huh?? Fate?
Here is the main definition of fate, the one Hoshi undoubtedly refers to here: “1: the will or principle or determining cause by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : DESTINY …” (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, page 456. Emphasis in original.) Let me translate this into the normal Naga nationalist nomenclature. Hoshi used the word fate in place of God. Every Naga nationalist I've read or spoken to at some point states that it is God's will that the Nagas will have a sovereign Naga nation. Fate is just Hoshi's way of avoiding the topic of God's intervention in the affairs of man. But the fact is, fate equals God. And once you introduce such terms into your arguments, all logic, even “courtroom” logic, is meaningless. Put more bluntly, once you rely on fate or God as the basis of your arguments, you have closed your mind to facts, to reality, to anything that disagrees with the conclusion that you want to prove. By introducing this word in paragraph one of his article, Hoshi is telling me that he has already closed his mind to any facts or any reality that I may present against the conclusion that he wants to believe in: the inevitability of a sovereign Naga nation.
Toward the end of paragraph one Hoshi says, “I only hope that your questions were with good intent and not just for the benefit of your research dissertation or for unseen powers working relentlessly to brainwash young Naga minds.” As far as dissertations, I am a retired 73-year-old lawyer with a Masters degree in Politics from New York University and Oxford University, and am also a registered nurse, the latter earned after I retired as a lawyer. My days of dissertations are over.
But the more interesting slur thrown my way is my laboring for “unseen powers working relentlessly to brainwash young Naga minds.” Who are these “unseen powers” he is referring to? Am I working for the GoI, the Amercan CIA, who? This potential smear on my reputation serves a purpose, even if Hoshi is not conscious of it. It says, in effect, that if I am effective in pursuading young Nagas that the Naga nationalist movement is self-destructive and doomed to fail, that that is not because my arguments are legitimate and I deserve to win the argument, but because I am using dark unseen forces to manipulate the minds of young Nagas.
But the accusation goes both ways. To the extent that Naga nationalists convince young Nagas that the Naga nationalist movement is something worth sacrificing their futures, even their lives, for in the name of fate or God, I maintain that this is even more dishonest. I try to base my arguments on facts, that is, on reality, while most Naga nationalists base it on illusion and emotion, which is what fate and God are, after all. How many losing causes were fought in the name of God? Hoshi may be willing to die for “fate,” but people like myself prefer to introduce facts and reality to the Naga youth.
In paragraphs two, three, and four, Hoshi goes through the usual litany of Naga history justifying the Naga nationalist cause: the declaration of independence of August 14, 1947, the plebiscite of 1951, the Indian military aggression of 1954 and the years after that, including the atrocities that accompanied the Indian military invasion of Naga territory. He states, at one point, “No outside power will erase the reality of this history from the hearts of the Nagas.” But people like me are not asking Nagas to erase Naga history from the hearts of Nagas. I'm just asking Nagas to use common sense and not act on that history as if that history decides all issues.
Let me point out again, as I've done in so many of my articles, that despite the history of the Nagas there is not a nation on the planet that has recognized the Nagas as a nation. This is a fact, a reality, that the Nagas must acknowledge, and fate is not going to change that.
At the end of paragraph four, Hoshi states, “You might be right in saying no nation will come to the rescue of Nagas.” Then in the very first sentence of paragraph five, he continues, “Nevertheless, you will also not deny either that humanity is supreme over the state power.” What?? This is pure sentimentality with no basis in the real world. People within their own nations are being slaughtered, and “humanity is [definitely not] supreme over the state power.”
Whether the country is Russia Syria, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, or dozens of other countries, states butcher their own people. Have there been attempts to assist people? Yes. There is now an international criminal court. There are United Nations treaties that purport to assist persecuted people. But they are all at the beginning stages of development and nationalism is the most powerful force on the planet. And when I say nationalism, I mean the GoI's claims on Nagaland.
That Naga nationalists do not recognize Indian nationalist claims on Nagaland, is irrelevant to India. Neither history nor fate nor God nor anything else has been able to loosen the claims of India on Nagaland, and I do not see it happening in the future. That is fact!
In paragraph seven Hoshi quotes me as stating that the atrocities perpetrated on the Nagas by the Indian army “is irrelevant, no matter how tragic these atrocities were.” I did say that. Hoshi then states, “Your message was more than clear that you want the Nagas to forget the past and focus on the reality of life at hand. The line also proved what scant regard you have for the dead.” I did not say “to forget the past;” I said that it is irrelevant to the present, if the facts in the present preclude what he wants to accomplish. That to cite the past does no good. I do not have “scant regard … for the dead.” But I am clear that, although you should honor the dead, your main responsibility is to the living. The goal is not to view the dead in such a way that it leads to the living dying for the dead. If his way of honoring the dead is to become a martyr for the futile cause of a sovereign Naga nation, that is fine for him. But he has no right to take others with him.
Thus, the role I've taken up in Nagaland. It is my position that the dead should not be the reason that the living should die. If the goal of a sovereign Naga nation is his excuse for his family and friends to sacrifice their lives in a cause that I view as futile, then I am on the side of the living, not the dead.
Hoshi has the courage, in paragraph eight, to agree with me that the NSCN (IM) is responsible “for the vicious cycle of corruption in Nagaland,” and expresses surprise that the GoI is willing to negotiate with the organization, something that bothers me as well. He deserves enormous credit for agreeing with me on that point. I will not be back in Kohima until February 5, 2017, but he is there now, and expressing such views publicly, as the newspapers who publish such views as ours, all deserve credit for their courage. The extirpation of Naga corruption is truly a goal worth pursing.
In paragraph nine, he closes his article with, “Finally, you may like to contest many of my points and engage me in your endless arguments but I repeat that, unless you have the power and goodwill to take Nagas beyond your courtroom, I will decline all your questions hereafter because it will be meaningless.”
I am not sure what the above means. In my world, and in his in India, a courtroom should express facts, not conjecture or rumor. It is a place, ideally, to try to reach the truth of a situation. It is one of the wonders of a civilized world, and is lacking in Nagaland.
In Nagaland there exists the rule of force and intimidation, not the rule of law. So if his statement, above, is a mandate to leave the facts and reality behind and join him in his world of fate and God, then we most certainly will not be talking. My way leads to a prosperous and peaceful future for the Nagas who exist now; his way leads to a world of sentimentality and emotion which can only lead his people to a tragic end..
