A research activist remarked that inspite of all the chaos and imperfections of Nepal, its sovereign status and ownership is what gives it a refreshing lease of life; especially for struggling people yearning for sovereignty. Indeed, this insight rings true and the spirit of the sovereign-feel-good factor is evidently echoed through the streets of Nepal. Yet, it is also fair to say that despite Nepal’s sovereign status, one could intuitively feel a stifling suffocation at not being able to collectively manifest and express its maximum potential and the richness of its life.
This viewpoint assumed some merit when some years ago an editor of a Kathmandu weekly publication said that Nepal in the context of the broader South-Asian context was not an independent state. He went on to say that ‘Nepal is sovereign, but not independent.’ The cause for this perception has probably evolved through generations of overwhelming historical experiences, geo-political realities and external conditions which have obstructed its inherent right to freely determine the course of its own destiny.
It does make one wonder what it means to be sovereign, but not independent. Surely to have the status and still be unable to exercise all that comes with it must be a frustrating dilemma. Eventually, living under these conditions erodes a people’s self-confidence and self-worth. This dilemma is indeed heart wrenching and provides critical lessons learned for struggling nations seeking sovereignty. It does imply that a sovereign status by itself is not sufficient, nor is it the end. In fact, more than the status, it asserts that a people are in a position to exercise the rights endowed to a sovereign entity.
The extent to which a people exercise its sovereign rights is dependent on how it is able to negotiate relations with other sovereign entities while maintaining ownership of its rights. With the fast increasing homogenizing nature of globalism and world politics, it has become extremely challenging for countries and nations in the ‘south’ to firmly and effectively maintain their independence. Consequently, the counter measure has been to make a shift away from sovereign status to practical real politick which focuses on the degree to which a political community is able to exercise its sovereign rights.
The onus is central for social movements to remain vibrant and sustainable; otherwise, it will result in many sovereign people being declared sovereign without actually being independent. It is therefore essential that any negotiation process center itself on negotiating ownership with the ability to exercise its right without any external hindrance. Such negotiating processes will have to embrace a wide range of issues such as inclusiveness, territory, natural resources, self-governance, security, foreign affairs, international recognition, economic, accountability with transparency, constitution and law, and so on.
The Naga struggle for its sovereign right in the beginning of the post-colonial period is now close to seventy years. And, in the course of its struggle, Nagas need to also question whether they are losing sight of the purpose for their struggle to attain independence and be a self-governing people.
