Mazie Nakhro, PhD
The Nagas who once lived under separate village republics all over their homeland became united under the Naga National Council (NNC) which was democratically formed on February 2, 1946. It was to this political entity that the Naga people entrusted their mandate to chart the Naga political future. Accordingly, it was under this very institution AZ Phizo was able to declare the Naga independence on August 14, 1946 and conduct the Plebiscite on May 16, 1951. Here the implications are: (1) Apart from the NNC, Phizo would have had no right to claim the people’s mandate or any power of legitimacy in his national service; (2) Phizo worked under the NNC but he was understandably not the same as the NNC because the latter is a political entity instituted as an independent body different from and transcending any human leader; and therefore (3) Phizo’s shortcomings cannot cancel the NNC’s existence or disqualify it from being the mandated body.
For Phizo, taking the NNC leadership was a rare privilege but the price he had to pay was costly. He was either in jail or in hiding because he was constantly being hunted by the Indian Army beginning from 1954. Even after he finally managed to escape to Great Britain, his mission of seeking international recognition of the duly declared Naga nation was sabotaged and his embryonic independent nation was betrayed when some educated Nagas opted to accept India’s offer of statehood under the Indian Union in the early 1960s. Next, the Revolutionary Government of Nagaland collaborated with the Indian Army and turned against the NNC/FGN in the early 1970s, resulting in the infamous Shillong Accord (SA) in 1975. Finally, the NSCN caused another crippling resistance to the NNC since the 1980s and, indeed, it has been going on without resolution for the last four decades.
Unfortunately, the past Naga national leaders often got derailed by tribalism because of putting their tribal interests over their common national Yehzabo which was meant to guide both for unity of purpose and resolution of problems. In matters of disputes within the old NNC/FGN, each party always had three options: (1) Follow the chain of command and settle their disputes within the ranks; (2) take the constitutional route and apply its laws and rules to settle disputes, or (3) influence the NNC’s Central Executive Council members to their points of view. But instead of taking any of these paths, they always turned it into a tribal fight with each side accusing the other.
In a democratic republic like ours, citizens are free to criticize their leaders and condemn the actions of their government. Likewise, Muivah had full right to condemn the signatories of the SA and Phizo. But the question is, why did he equate the NNC and Phizo to the SA? It was along this line of reasoning Tubu Kevichüsa raised some pointed questions to the two sopranos of the NSCN on July 9, 1983, stating: “I would like to ask who was holding charge of the NNC? The President A.Z. Phizo is an old man far away in London; lmkongmeren the Vice-President was in jail. Thus the expectations of an entire nation, the whole load of administration, direction and office of the NNC devolved on two (2) men, namely – lsak Chishi Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah. Under the circumstances, is it not a contradiction of yourself to say that the Naga National Council had failed?” (Note: At that time, Muivah was the General Secretary and Isak, the Vice-President of the NNC).
So, then, when it comes to claiming legitimacy, what are appropriate criteria? Could any Naga who had once sworn to uphold the first Naga national Yehzabo simply resort to defection and start another group in direct violation of Article 143? Should the Naga people decide legitimacy based on which group can conduct the most effective propaganda campaign? Is it lawful for any group to claim legitimacy by employing suppression of dissenting voices? Or should legitimacy be determined by constitutional laws that were originally agreed upon and never revoked? Don’t our constitutional laws require that the question of institutional legitimacy be proven by an uninterrupted succession of leadership through a constitutionally approved process based on democratic principles alone? For ignoring to address questions such as these, the Nagas have come to live with confusion under multiple national groups.
Indeed, Phizo committed some regrettable actions for taking an uncompromising stance that the Nagas are already an independent nation by declaration. For him, the Naga nation was a settled reality which was only to be defended, as opposed to still fighting for independence or simply giving it away in exchange for something else. For this reason, he did not understand any national leader who deviated from the principles of full-sovereignty and democratic republic system as enshrined in the national Yehzabo.
As for the NSCN, here are a few commendable actions and mistakes: (1) condemning the SA was right, but equating it with the NNC was wrong; (2) working things out in the old NNC or starting a similar party like NNC (NA) would have led to gaining undivided support as even most Angamis and Chakhesangs might have supported Muivah then, but starting a completely new party was a huge political blunder; and (3) tirelessly defending the Naga sovereignty and seeking international recognition are commendable, but returning to India for a “solution” was another misstep.
Despite all the mistakes our national leaders might have committed, we all must remember at least three things:
1. We must realize that mistakes were bound to happen in their revolutionary politics, because they were under constant pressures and lacking accessible communication. Since these were all parts of the unavoidable nature of “the Naga beast”, no one should keep blaming our revolutionary patriots.
2. In the grand scheme of things, even the NNC being correct on most issues does not mean much unless it possesses all the capabilities required for nation-building on its own.
3. Now that factionalism has proven to be self-destructive, we must all learn to let go of our past grievances and accept each other again. And when this happens, the question of legitimacy will no longer be a divisive issue because we will be focused on using our diverse strengths to complement each other for our common good.
