Dr. Somingam Mawon
(1) Nor I!
A fact or assertion is not simply put forwarded just for the sake of contestation. It is stated only when there are strong disagreements that are advanced for and against some propositions or opinions. I for sure do not like argument just for the sake of argument. I belief, one should not write something in the public space that would invite argument(s) if we are to avoid argument in the first place. If the foundation of Naganess and its movement were not built on the principles of “race” (ethnic group), “blood” and “religion” (Christianity), and if such principles are considered “narrow”, “divisive” and “erroneous” in the Naga context, then I shall share no more views on this count in the public space, for this would have a bigger argumentation and I see print media as not the right place to deliberate on this issue.
Democratic values were and are in short supply since the beginning of the people and armed movement in our society. If the statement, “One way or the other, all factions are dictated by some leaders and thus the question of democracy in the real sense of the term does not exist” is translated as “This writer holds that all the Naga National Groups were created by PURSUATION and DEMOCRACY, except the original NSCN (IM) that Muivah and Isac Chishi created was by the Barrel of the Gun”, then the exchange of words and opinions has meet its end for we read not to understand but to respond, and this definitely is not an argument!
(2) On the Territory
I am happy to learn that my identity (can be read as profession) has been corrected in the print media. I have no issue with the meaning and definition of Naga territory in an academic parlance. I feel it would be right to see the text that has created a space for argumentation on the issue of territory in the first place. The issue of “territory” came up because of the use of the word “NNC territory” and its meanings that are found in the writing, and to which I gave my rejoinder. It (See Morung Express, April 17, 2017) primarily says that Nagaland state (a creation of the NPC) is the territory of NNC, which would mean to say that the NNC recognise the creation of Nagaland state. And if we go by such logic, NNC is not a political group that would voice for the Nagas of Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Myanmar. In other words, in principle, the party has no relevance to the other parts of the Naga areas. In practice, you as an NNC Kilonser know far better than me on the relevance of the NNC in the Naga areas outside of Nagaland state. If we still insist that the said state is NNC territory, the existence of other political groups which primarily operate in Nagaland state would have no political territory of its own. Thus, the contestation over the political territory among the various parties may follow. If we follow the same yardstick, the NSCN headed by Khaplang would decide on any political matters concerning the Nagas of Myanmar, and Muivah would decide on political issues that concern the Nagas of Manipur. If we go by such logic, we can conclude that there is no political group that represents the whole Naga areas. If such a conclusion is not true, then the argument of Nagaland state as NNC territory is proven wrong. Though any political group primarily operating in the “Indian side” (whether we like the term or not) may claim that they represent the whole Naga areas, the solution to be brought by any political party from “this side” would not cover the whole geographical territory of the Nagas. In other words, any political negotiations with the Government of India by any political group cannot bring solution to the Naga areas of Myanmar.
The first line of the second paragraph of the memorandum submitted to the Simon Commission by the Naga Club read: “Before the British Government conquered our country in 1879-80 we were living in a State of intermittent warfare with the Assamese of the Assam valley to the North and West of our country and Manipuris to the South.” The last line of the memorandum read: “We claim not only the members of the Naga Club to represent all those regions to which we belong Angamis, Kacha Nagas, Semas, Kukis, Lothas and Rengma, but also other regions of Nagaland.” Keeping in mind these statements, I did mention the word “roughly mapped out”, words written not from a technical point of view, but trying to point out that the club’s members had the areas in mind that would be called Nagaland. It was a poor choice of words, and for which I stand corrected.
It is true that there are some literatures which have mentioned Keviyalie as the “chief architect of the accord”, that does not mean to say that such “allegation” came from me. I am a little bit lost here, in your earlier “Clarifications No. 3” you have mentioned (even though the Shillong Accord stated otherwise) that “the NNC had not signed the Shillong Accord and that none of the signatories were members of the NNC”. In your latest response to me (April 23, 2017), you have questioned me “If Keviyalie had indeed drafted the Shillong Accord, why was he the one who requested the Governor to allow the delegation to first consult their colleagues in Nagaland before signing the document?” If Keviyalie was not associated with the NNC, why did he sign the accord, even when the accord clearly mentioned in Section 1 that they are the “representatives of the underground organisations” (referring to NNC)? And if he was not associated with the party you represent, why did he request “the Governor to allow the delegation to first consult their colleagues in Nagaland before signing the document?” From your question, we can infer that this gentleman Keviyalie was going to sign the document, but he would need consultation first with his “colleagues in Nagaland”, but why and for what to sign if he was not associated with the NNC? Just my opinion!
You have been referring Shapwon’s book “The Illegal Formation of the NSCN”, and have made good use of that book in our discussions (or should I say argument?). We both know that the title of the book itself invites contestation, let alone the content of the book. You have mentioned about Phizo’s four paged instruction send to T. Pushu Venuh in Angami language on September 11, 1979, that was nearly four years after the signing of the Shillong Accord (November 11, 1975) and roughly four months before the formation of the NSCN (January 31, 1980). We both know that NNC has every answer for every question that comes from the NSCN and vice versa. But others would argue that mistakes were made on both sides.
In the first place I have no intention to argue on the Naga historical event that had caused much harm to the Nagas, but the continual usage of public space in asserting one side of the story and even the misrepresentation of my tribe has prompt me to give my rejoinder to the other writer. As a Naga citizen, I would only hope that we all should know the both sides of the story, as assertion and accusation of one’s stand will not take us anywhere except to hate more of each other. What concerns the most for the Naga people is the initiation and involvement of all political groups in bringing a logical conclusion to the protracted Naga issue.
