Kaka D Iralu
Though “Geographical Territory” and “Political Territory” are interrelated terms, in the strictly scientific linguistics discipline, the two terms are entirely two different things. In the scientific Linguistics discipline, “Geographical Territory” means the LAND area (or territory) of a nation. On the other hand, “Political Territory” means the political boundary or limits of a political party. In this sense, “political territory” means an imagined or defined and written boundary, beyond which that particular political party cannot go in expressing the political views of their party.
I am asking and making these clarifications in the context of many statements about Naga territories and counter rejoinders by many Naga writers including myself. And in this connection allow me to also apologize to Dr. Somingam Mawon for thinking that he is a member of the NSCN IM (Reference, Morung Express April 23, 2017). Before issuing my clarifications to his writings, I did ask a Tangkhul elder about his name and identity and was told that he thinks Mawon was a Kilonser in the I.M. I therefore wrote with the assumption that he was an official of the I.M. The mistake is squarely my own mistake and I do apologize for it.
Now Dr. Mawon in his latest response to me had written that prior to the Geographical map (Territory) stated in the Naga Yehzabo of 1956, the Naga Club had roughly mapped out the Naga regions which were to be included in the supposed Nagaland.” Here I would like to state that I am not aware of any such map mapped out by the Naga Club either in the memorandum or in any attached map. They did make mention of our Naga “country” and also “tribes” but country or tribes are not maps. I would also like to add that Nagaland is not a “supposed Nagaland” but a concrete geographical territory inhabited by a physical race called Nagas for over 2000 years in recorded history.
Regarding the Shillong Accord, you have mentioned about “certain literature “which have mentioned Keviyalie being the “chief architect of the accord.” I have also come across many such fictitious literature written by so many MIPs (Ministry of Information and Publicity and even individuals), which are all purely LIES concocted to cover up mistakes and crimes committed by so many leaders of so many factions that have sprung up using the Shillong Accord as their justification for forming their factions. My question to your” literature” allegation of Keviyalie being the chief architect of the Shillong Accord is this counter question: If Keviyalie had indeed drafted the Shillong Accord, why was he the one who requested the Governor to allow the delegation to first consult their colleagues in Nagaland before signing the document?
Logically speaking, shouldn't he have been the first person to sign the document gladly if he had drafted it in the first place? As for Phizo’s alleged silence over the Shillong Accord, please read his reply to the Shillong Accord in page 161 of Shapwon’s book “The Illegal Formation of the NSCN” which you say, you are also aware of. Allow me to also here quote some excerpts from Phizo’s instructions to T. Pushü Venuh who became Vice President of NNC after Imkongmeren.
Phizo wrote to Pushü in Angami which translated into English, goes like this: “Some people are raising a hue and cry over a Shillong Accord signed with the black man about which I did not have any foreknowledge and am not even bothered… If they (Indians) raise the accord issue when we meet, they will have to explain its meaning to us and then we will know how to reply them…even in the past they have been talking about a Ten year Agreement which they themselves have rejected but often raised it again and again in order to fool others. Also why was a puppet state imposed in Nagaland if there exist a former agreement? And on top of this, why another Shillong accord? The black man will have to explain these things to our people… Be vigilant because they will always try to keep us divided so that they can establish their own position over us.”
Yet, in spite of what Phizo had written about the Shillong Accord, “some literature” (as you call it), still insist that Keviyalie the younger brother of Phizo was the chief architect of the Shilling Accord! (Phizo’s four paged instructions to Venuh in Angami are available for anyone to see. The letter was dated London, Sept 18, 1979).
You have also mentioned about Phizo’s 5 years silence from 1975 to 1980 which prompted Isak and Muivah to form the NSCN in 1980. Muivah and late Isak had also talked about writing three letters to Phizo for advice and guidance after the Shillong accord to which Phizo never replied them. In this connection, one of the first questions that I asked Ms. Adinno whom I met for the first time in my life in London in 2002, was to show me the three letters that Muivah and Isak had sent to Phizo. Her incredulous reply to me was: “So even you have been fooled by other people’s lies. I am your grandfather’s Secretary and no such letter was ever sent by them.” Later on, I had in one of my rejoinders to the I.M. asked them to re-produce those letters so that the Naga public can read what they had written to Phizo. But so far they have not reproduced those letters to the public domain. As for Zashei’s four letters to Isak and Muivah from 1978 to 1984, pleading with them to meet the authorities in Western Nagaland so that the Shillong accord could be explained to them, you will find those letters in page 145-153 of the afore mentioned Shopwan’s book. Neither of them ever replied the FGN President’s explanation of the Shillong Accord or plea for reconciliation.
This is not surprising as Shopwan had also written how Col. Subongs suggestions to go and talk with the leaders in Nagaland and also Major Neituolie’s similar desire to go and meet the authorities in Western Nagaland after the Shillong Accord of 1975, were all prevented by Muivah before the formation of the NSCN in 1980.
As for S.A. Shishak’s book which you have mentioned, I will search for it and read it.
