Morung Express News
Wokha | May 10
Can the Naga political groups come under one umbrella? Is the Naga nation prepared politically, socially and economically in the event of getting Independence? What approaches should be taken to resolve opposition from neighbouring states towards Naga integration? Is the demand for Naga sovereignty complete separation from the Union of India or similar to J&K state which has its own separate flag?
These were some questions raised at the brainstorming session on the topic ‘The Naga journey—hopes and challenges’ held on the concluding day of the 28th NSF general conference with L Adani and Dr. N Janbemo Humtsoe as moderators.
Three panelists—Neingulo Krome, Secretary General, NPMHR; Alezo Venuh, Envoy to Collective Leadership, GRPN/NSCN and V Horam, Executive Member of Steering Committee, NSCN/GPRN– presented their viewpoints on the Naga journey.
Initiating the discourse, Krome said the Naga journey starting with the memorandum to the Simon Commission (1929) is replete with sacrifices and sufferings, punctuated by instances of missed opportunities. He pondered that had the Nagas accepted Crown Colony status in 1935, the Naga people might have been granted independence in 1985 as in the case of Hong Kong.
Changing Attitude
Krome also mentioned the first Indo-Naga ceasefire in 1964 and how during that time India had offered everything under the Sun except “sovereignty” but that the Naga people said that they would not accept anything except sovereignty. He also said subsequent agreements and accords like the 16 Point Agreement and Shillong Accord had only created further division and conflict within the Naga family.
After the 1997 ceasefire and subsequent talks and recognition of the “unique history and situation of the Nagas” by Government of India in 2002, India finally accepted the idea of shared sovereignty. The veteran human rights activist said challenges are many and shared one aspect: during the first ceasefire (1964), every Naga might have gladly accepted a solution but in the present context of the Framework Agreement, criticisms seem to be more than acceptance.
He said if the Framework Agreement cannot guarantee sovereignty, then there would be more condemnations. But even if the agreement guaranteed sovereignty, Krome wondered whether Naga public would come to terms with even that. He underlined the need for change of attitude to overcome the challenges and misconceptions.
Conflict of interests taking a toll
V Horam meanwhile lamented that “we are a divided house today because of the conflict of interest leading to the formation of many groups.” Conflict of interests are not always in the best interest of the Naga nation, he stated.
While pointing out that civil societies and tribal hohos have been the backbone of the Naga national movement, Horam lamented that except a few, today, “divisionism on the basis of tribe or area has taken a toll on the very fabric of Naga society.”
He further touted the Framework Agreement as being centered on safeguarding the rights of the Nagas and the security of India, mutually worked out taking into account 21st century realities. Dwelling on the broad counters of the agreement, Horam said sovereignty of Nagas lies with the Naga people and not in the Indian parliament or Indian constitution. He informed that all substantive issues have been discussed and agreed upon barring the Constitution and Naga national flag. “Without these two, there is no shared sovereignty, co-existence and identity. Any agreement without these two issues would amount to merger, acceptance of Indian constitution and to live under Indian flag”, Horam said.
Pragmatic approach needed
Envoy to the collective leadership, GRPN/NSCN, Alezo Venuh called for a “pragmatic approach on futuristic policies that includes the dynamics of political and socio-economic planning and growth.” After nearly a quarter century of dialogues and negotiations, if the core issues of the Naga revolutionary movement remain unresolved, then the onus of such failure will have to be accepted by the leadership, he said.
“Distinctive identity of each group and their ideologies cannot be left to be surrendered and salvaged before any other group on the grounds of assertive power or the position they enjoy with the Government of India and the State governments”, the envoy said.
Venuh said Nagas of Nagaland could emerge as a cohesive group, yet in the process, the deprivation, neglect, anomalies in the increments of growth and prosperity felt by different communities became a contentious issue. “Also, the wrong message and alienation of other communities who coexist within and neighbouring Naga territories has also created more fears and disturbances in arriving at an early solution”, he added.
Venuh informed that the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) effectively addressed the technicalities and difficulties that encumbered both sides (GoI and NNPGs) in the process of negotiations. “Wherever provisions are to be created, extensively worked on it. This made the GoI come forward with their formulations…Naga National Groups, after carefully examining the positions and approach of the Government of India, adopted the line of approach whereby the legal and constitutional position of India itself could pave a way ahead in the process. This pragmatic approach could remove all objections raised by GoI and make a clear way”, Venuh said.
