E T Sunup
The hard work put in by FNR, the courage and vision of the Naga national leadership, and Divine favour facilitated by prayers of many around the world, which culminated in reaffirmation of the ‘Covenant of Reconciliation’ on September 18, 2010, on Naga home soil, has both synergised the difficult Naga journey with some desperately needed rays of light on an otherwise gloomy road, and also infused a rather tiresome 13-year long dialogue engagement with a healthy dose of elixir.
On the other side of the Table:
Advantage Delhi:
As long as the Naga national Organisations remained at loggerheads with one another, Delhi had a strong, valid point to keep asking for ‘unity’ on the Naga front as a prerequisite condition to be worked on first, before the much anticipated settlement dialogue could get into ‘more substantive’ issues, and thereby, in the meantime, secure critical time on its side to gradually edge towards tactical advantage,- such as, for instance: (i) trying to mellow down the sharp edges on the dialogue engagement process;
(ii) allowing sufficient time to feel the diametrical difference by the Naga public between a peaceful, normal atmosphere and the abnormal situation of prolonged disruptive violence they had suffered over the years, so that public support for peace gets stronger and more vocal; (iii) mapping out the ins and outs of the strategies, strengths and weaknesses of the opposite camp for use in the dialogue process and exploitation in the event of a total collapse of the ‘peace process’; (iv) work on making more effective anti-militancy arrangements with neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan;
(v) boost up the strike capability of the security forces in sensitive areas through detailed planning in case the need should arise, and so on. Also, during the 13-year period, Delhi’s gradual emergence as a global power, cementing of stronger ties with the West and deterrence capability build-up has rendered far more remote the possibility of some foreign power directly intervening in the affairs of Naga politics. Viewed from this perspective, the 13-year long stretch of protracted dialogue engagement has been to Delhi’s considerable advantage. Now, however, that there has been a breakthrough on reconciliation at the very top level of Naga national leadership, the way forward is set on much more solid and stable ground.
Constraints of Real Politick:
India has great leaders with vision, understanding, moral integrity and courage. Many of them have recognised and acknowledged the uniqueness of the Naga political issue. However, look at the highly mixed baggage that is Indian politics today! In the kind of democratic polity that India is, every leader’s public posturing and decision making in crunch-time politicking is severely regulated and dictated by the count of numbers, both in the ballot box as also, eventually, in the two Houses of Parliament. No leader would dare dissociate himself or herself from this reality except at the cost of one’s own political peril. Also, no Indian political party or Central Government would plunge into national security and integrity related risks, howsoever genuine, at the possibility of its own demise. Extreme strategic importance of States like J&K, Nagaland and some other North Eastern States to India’s defence and national security interests requires no emphasis. Expect Delhi to, therefore, stonewall and fight tooth and nail against any proposition for any of those strategic States including Nagaland to break away completely from the Indian Union. Keeping the ‘historical and political rights of the Nagas’ in perspective, a fundamental question then becomes inevitable: ‘If Delhi’s concern for a peaceful, secure North-East is truly serious enough, would it also then have the vision, determination and courage to go the extra mile to articulate a political arrangement with the Naga national leaders that is realistically ‘honourable and acceptable enough’ to all concerned?’ The reality is that without some concessions on one’s own rigid stand and reciprocal accommodation of the other side’s points of view, no final resolution is expected to be forthcoming. A rigid stand by both or either side could only mean a certain collapse of the on-going ‘peace process’ and a return to violent conflict.
In Perspective:
Certain undeniable facts can be recalled while trying to put the issue in proper perspective:
• The Naga national movement commenced and the Naga desire to be left alone in their own age-old traditional ways of life when the British left colonial India was expressed clearly much before India’s independence on 15th August, 1947.
• Creation of Nagaland State which eventually caused a chain reaction, changing forever the political landscape of North-East India was a by-product of the Naga national movement. Had there not been a Naga national movement, Nagaland State would not have been created and would have remained as a hill district of Assam. But, rather than extinguish it, creation of Nagaland State on sheer political considerations only enflamed the Naga national movement to greater intensity.
• In Delhi’s effort to crush Naga militancy, unimaginable atrocities of different kinds committed on innocent Naga villages, men, women and children by the Indian security forces have been documented by various research writers. If pursued seriously enough, there could be sufficient ground to take many of those cases to the International Court of Justice for prosecution of the concerned perpetrators for commission of heinous crimes against humanity. Such cases of inhuman treatment suffered by the Nagas have been silenced, blind-folded and ‘legalised’ through various undemocratic and draconian laws framed under different Acts like,’ The Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act’, ‘Assam Disturbed Area Act’, ‘Nagaland Security Act’, ‘AFSPA’, which in effect could be termed as State sponsored terrorism unleashed on innocent people in the name of fighting militancy. Has all this succeeded in ‘killing’ the Naga national movement?
• Historical developments have clearly proven the fact that post-creation of Nagaland State, and since formation and surrender of the Revolutionary Government and subsequent signing of the capitulation Accord of 1975 at Shillong, which could all be perceived as serious efforts to dismantle the Naga political issue, the Naga national movement rose from virtual ashes to what it is today,- necessitating the signing of two separate Ceasefire Agreements and an on-going political dialogue.
• The argument here is that whether it was the Memorandum of 1929 submitted to the Simon Commission, or the 9-point Hydari Agreement, or declaration of Naga Independence on 14th August 1947, or the plebiscite of 1951, or formation of a Naga Independent Government in 1952, the steps so taken by the Naga national workers were not mere symbolic or propaganda stunts, but that all of this and many more steps so taken by them thereafter arose out of certain engrained political aspirations and inextinguishable convictions, which obviously cannot be satisfied by some half-hearted offer of what could be perceived as an appeasement gesture.
• After six decades of this protracted issue, and a 13-year long ensuing dialogue, Delhi certainly needs to search deeper and come up with a solution package that goes beyond the status quo political box of what Nagaland already is today, to make a final resolution possible and honourable enough for the Naga national leaders and their Organisations to accept.
Outside the Box:
Short of Sovereignty, for example:
(i) A separate Constitution for Nagaland with some more special provisions is not an impossibility, since a precedence already exists in the case of J&K under , Article 370 of the Constitution.
(ii) Creation by Delhi of a greater Nagaland comprising contiguous Naga territories would be a mere revival and honouring of Clauses 12 and 13 of the 50-year old 16-Point Agreement. And, read together with the special provision made for J&K in respect of territorial alteration of the State, it may be understood that the Indian Parliament can bring this into effect under Article 3 of the Constitution even without the specific approval of the concerned State Legislatures, provided the requisite political will does exist.
(iii) Increasing the seats in the State Legislature and enhancement of the State’s representation in Parliament can surely be worked out.
(iv) A complete restoration, in spirit and letter, of Clause 11 of the 16-Point Agreement, which got diluted since 1989-1990 and making it into law, would provide adequate scope for addressing the various financial, administrative and developmental needs of Nagaland as part of the special political package.
On this Side of the Table: The way Forward
People’s Confidence and Support:
Who are the support base, and for whom have the Naga National Organisations been fighting, now for six decades? Very simply, the Naga people. The people are the arms and legs of the national movement, and without their active support and participation, there can be no going forward. Can one suggest that articulation of open Naga public support and voice from all the Naga territories for taking the Naga political process forward was never more important than at this critical juncture? Such a public movement can come forth when the Naga national leaders and the organisations led by them can bolster Naga public confidence in them *as worthy national leaders on a united front,*through their more dignified conduct of national affairs, *and by effectively presenting to the Nagas everywhere a national vision, post-settlement, that is well-grounded, realistic and worth fighting for. ‘Historical and political rights of the Nagas’ is indeed the very foundation and reason for the entire political argument. But to keep reiterating it without simultaneously presenting a hard look at the circumstantial realities within which this could be articulated towards a realistically attainable Naga future, would instil little inspiration to common folks who have been used to long periods of waiting in hope that only ended up in deadlock, frustration and more violence. Let people have a good look at what can be theirs in reality.
The Unity Factor:
While dealing with such movements, it is seen that Delhi has shown the tendency to only accommodate strength and depth of the opposite party, and the usual tale has been to react with alacrity only when some crises situations develop. This is another strong reason why Naga unity on the issue is absolutely essential, which can only be brought about through the wise initiatives of the Naga national leaders.
The leaders alone know what precisely are their differences and how to resolve them among themselves. One’s humble view is that from the present position of reconciliation on the ‘historical and political rights of the Nagas’:
(i) There should be a movement forwards, towards according to the present Naga national negotiators, the NSCN(IM), the mandate and endorsement of all the other groups to speak on behalf of the Nagas, after detailed internal discussions. The mandate given should be unconditional for the simple reason that neither the NSCN(IM) nor any other groups can possibly wrest a settlement from Delhi that is totally one-sided and that does not accommodate the genuine strategic and political concerns of Delhi.
(ii) From a position of full endorsement, preferably, they could/should move forward to an arrangement of ‘coalition’ under whatever neutral name they decide upon, maintaining their individual identities, so that representatives from the other groups can also become official participants in the dialogue process, under NSCN(IM)’s leadership. This will ensure critical collective responsibility.
(iii) Ideally, if they could merge together, under a single chain of command in all the departments of their organisations, such an integration will lend enormously to their own strength, generate more enthusiastic public support and open the way for much faster political as well as socio-economic healing in Nagaland.
(iv) Leaders and cadres in the Naga national Organisations hail from different Naga tribes and Naga territories. Their demand for a greater Naga homeland is quite understandable. Is it not a tragic irony of history that an international boundary should run through the middle of a Naga Ahang’s house? We do not, however, hear a lot of voice or see much visible political initiative from the public and civil societies of those living outside of present Nagaland, making known their expressed desire to become part of a greater Nagaland. It seems the Naga national leadership and other Naga organisations have much more to initiate in this respect, if a final settlement is to be truly inclusive.
The Rule of Law:
The picture, perception and experience of Naga society during the last many years, until very recent times, have been one of unabated lawlessness,- marked by kidnappings, hijackings, killings, lootings, extortions, forcible land-grabbing, gun-point imposition of multiple ‘taxes’, throwing to the wind the rule of law, justice and human values, blatant scuttling of democratic values and norms,- indeed, quite a bloody, chaotic and violent time verging on near anarchy. True, criminal elements also exploited the prevailing situation to their full advantage, bringing blame and discredit to the national organisations. Restoring public confidence and genuine respect for the national organisations and making Nagaland a well disciplined, peaceful and desirable destination is a huge challenge at this point in time. The image of Nagaland needs to be restored, reconstructed and re-projected. Then, perhaps, the Nagas of the neighbouring States might all become more enthusiastic and vocal in wanting to become part of a greater Nagaland. Theories, slogans and ideologies can inspire, but it would take character, morality and discipline in public life, vision and dedicated hard work to transform our land. All of us, together, can turn Nagaland into a homeland that we can be rightfully proud of.
