The question of sovereignty has been at the core of fundamental differences between unrepresented peoples and States. While there is no consensus on one acceptable definition of sovereignty, the Westphalian language of sovereignty has guided international affairs, further polarizing perceptions and positions on sovereignty.
This polarization was enhanced with the end of the Cold War when proponents of liberal democracy aggressively purported the idea that Sovereignty be dichotomized into two aspects: Economic Sovereignty and Political Sovereignty. In erroneously suggesting that economics and politics are unrelated, and by conveniently disregarding all aspects of human life as not having equal importance, it further suggests that Economic Sovereignty precedes Political Sovereignty in the context of social change.
While this supposition in the present era of globalism may seem seductive, this dichotomization of Sovereignty is costly and has occurred in the same scheming way that the Western knowledge system dichotomized humanity into two conceptual entities: ‘State and Man.’ Dichotomizing Sovereignty is obstructing the natural progression and proportionate development of all life that invariably strengthens a State-centered status quo. Just as humanity is indivisible, so is Sovereignty indivisible.
Fundamental to this understanding is recognizing that Sovereignty is not the end, it is only the means; the necessary conditions by which humanity can freely exercise developing its full human dignity and human worth. Therefore, proposing to dichotomize Sovereignty actually projects it as the final destination end and not the means. This idea creates a false illusion benefiting only the State and prevents humanity’s holistic growth, while simultaneously nurturing the forces of the powers that be through destroying our natural resources, while at the same time increasing militarization, globalization and consumerism.
The assertion that Political Sovereignty should be first or the view that Economic Sovereignty should come before the political has only caused needless polarization in public discourses. The truth of the matter is that Sovereignty cannot be fragmented! There are sufficient historical and present global occurrences that amply suggest that the stability and well-being of any political community requires the political, social, cultural and economic working together hand in hand. Only together can the spirit of Sovereignty be a means of enabling people’s rights.
Fundamental to sustaining a worldview that nurtures the values of a shared humanity is realizing and acknowledging that life is not and cannot be compartmentalized. It is interconnected, interdependent and interrelated within a complex web of relations. Simply put, one affects the other just as the principle of the ‘butterfly effect.’ From this view point Sovereignty cannot be dichotomized, rather it needs to be understood and exercised as a relational value that finds meaning only when it is respected and approached in its indivisible entity. In this manner, the values of Sovereignty become the lived reality in the daily lives of men and women.
There is no doubt that Political Sovereignty cannot survive on its own, and it is equally true that Economic Sovereignty on its own will not elevate the dignity and quality of human life. In their individual attributes as economic and political freedom, they are but incomplete and unsustainable. However, together in relationship they are complementary in bringing out the true and fullest meaning of what it is to be holistic and long lasting.
Unfortunately, many independent movements struggle to transcend dichotomizing the values of Sovereignty. Human endeavors such as independence and sovereignty need to be realized as complete entities, or else they face a premature end. Nagas, too are faced with this dilemma, and it would be detrimental for Nagas to entrap themselves in this dichotomy. We need to engage in a deep and critical process of understanding the meaning of Sovereignty through examining its values in the Naga context. This process will help us collectively make informed collective decisions that will positively benefit everyone and improve our quality of life in pursuit of our shared humanity.
Dichotomized view of Sovereignty negates the interactive nature of how public policy, politics and economics in general are influenced by actions of civil society. Nagas need to use this as a guiding principle in order to begin articulating a holistic understanding and process towards Sovereignty. Nagas need to ask whether the independence that they yearn for is one where people take ownership of decision-making processes and exercise their rights to elevate their quality of life which will ultimately define the course of their shared future. If this is the case, then Sovereignty remains an entity that cannot be dichotomized into narrow elements of economics, politics, culture, social and so on. After all Sovereignty is greater than the sum of its parts which supports Nagas living with respect and dignity in harmony as one people.
