Alezo Venuh
Ato Kilonser, GPRN/NSCN (U)
On this occasion of profound joy and solemn reflection, I rise to address the Naga people with a deep sense of satisfaction that our government and our people have remained committed to the social and political values bequeathed to us by our forefathers. Their unwavering determination was never to surrender, under any circumstances, the traditional and historical political rights of the Naga people. That legacy places upon us an enduring responsibility to preserve our freedom, our institutions and our right to govern, administer and live according to our own political and customary traditions, for ourselves and for generations yet to come.
The triumph of Naga identity, freedom and self-respect is unequivocal and non-negotiable. Our glorious history becomes meaningful only when its values are properly understood, reaffirmed and transmitted to succeeding generations. Our customs, traditions and democratic institutions constitute an essential part of our political heritage and must remain the foundation of our collective future.
The strength of Naga determination created a profound socio-political confrontation which eventually resulted in military intervention by India. The relationship began on an unfortunate note: two great civilisations came face to face at an inauspicious moment and on an unsuitable political platform. The prolonged armed resistance exacted a heavy human and social cost. Yet, in 1997, a silver lining appeared amidst the dark clouds—the ceasefire that opened the way for political dialogue and the Indo-Naga Peace Talks.
It is important to state the political reality clearly. To this day, the Naga Army and the Naga National Governments have not entered into a final political settlement with the Government of India through a formally executed and legally operative agreement. Negotiations commenced in 1997; a new phase began in 2017. The first process culminated in the Framework Agreement of 3rd August 2015, while the subsequent negotiations concluded on 31st October 2019. The Peace Talks have therefore reached their conclusion, but the political process remains incomplete pending the signing and formalisation of the Accord.
The negotiations with the NNPGs were, in substance, an important test of India's constitutional democracy and the extent to which its federal principles could accommodate the political aspirations of the Naga people. When the NNPG negotiations commenced in September 2017, it became necessary to establish a fresh and mutually understood basis for dialogue. A common understanding of the respective positions of the Nagas and the Government of India became a sine qua non for meaningful negotiations. This constituted the Agreed Position.
The NNPGs adopted a holistic approach, seeking a political synthesis capable of providing a durable basis for settlement. The Agreed Position, as understood by us, is an intergovernmental understanding between the Government of India and the Naga National Governments represented by the NNPGs. The negotiations proceeded through defined protocols, systematic procedures and a structured agenda. Where particular proposals were not acceptable to the Government of India, viable alternatives were placed before it for negotiation.
The Peace Talks were concluded after understandings were reached concerning the separation of powers and restrictive immunity from the ordinary exercise of certain constitutional powers in the Naga areas, particularly in matters relating to Naga political rights and customary institutions. The understanding envisages a bicameral legislature for Nagaland with appropriate legislative authority over the subjects agreed upon, while other Naga areas would have Territorial Councils with legislative powers distinct from Parliament and the respective State Legislatures. These councils are envisaged not as ordinary statutory autonomous councils, but as appropriate governmental institutions within the existing geopolitical framework.
The implementation of this understanding will depend upon the wisdom and responsibility of Naga customary and political leadership. It must be institutionalised faithfully, both in letter and in spirit.
The Three Principal Challenges
Today, we face three principal obstacles to the completion of the political process: India's security perceptions; acceptance of the political realities established between 1997 and 2019; and apprehensions within the existing political system concerning institutional change.
First, the strategic environment of the North-East is changing rapidly. India's security concerns regarding China and the wider regional environment, together with evolving strategic developments involving Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries, have created additional sensitivities. Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland may increasingly assume importance within India's broader regional-security framework. These realities were considered during the negotiations, and the Government of India agreed to accommodate necessary adjustments as confidence-building measures.
We must understand India's security concerns without compromising Naga political rights. At the same time, Naga society must ensure that internal conflicts, proliferation of competing nationalist formations and public disorder do not provide justification for increased security intervention. We must maintain public order, prevent societal insecurity and ensure that disagreements do not obstruct the political process. External intervention in Naga affairs must be avoided through political maturity, restraint and responsible leadership.
Secondly, we must accept the political realities that emerged between 1997 and 2019. The time has come for a larger understanding between the negotiating groups. We must objectively assess the achievements, limitations, failures and misgivings, if any, in the understandings reached with the Government of India.
The politics of blame and mutual suspicion must end. We must approach one another with trust, dignity and respect in the spirit of Naga nationalism. The two negotiating processes should be recognised as important components of our collective political journey rather than treated as competing narratives. Our divisions create space for undesirable forces and ideas. Having taken steps towards reconciliation, we must now proceed towards political consolidation.
Third, the existing political system will naturally have apprehensions regarding a transition to new political institutions. The political system is a vast structure with ramifications extending across numerous institutions and constituencies. Its transformation cannot be accomplished as though one were painting upon a blank canvas. It requires prudence, consultation and statesmanship.
Once negotiations have been concluded and an understanding reached, the Government of India and the concerned State Governments should exercise due forbearance in matters affecting the subjects and areas covered by that understanding.
Any decision affecting Naga areas should be preceded by appropriate consultation with the negotiating representatives so that no governmental action overlaps with or prejudices the settled understanding.
The Assam–Nagaland Border Question
I must also draw attention to the Tripartite Agreement concerning the Assam–Nagaland border areas. Our position remains that the Naga Tribal Areas were not transferred by Assam to the State of Nagaland in 1963 and that this historical question was considered during the negotiations. The Government of India, as understood by us, agreed to an Empowered High-Powered Committee to examine and demarcate the traditional boundaries of the Naga Tribal Areas from North Cachar to Tinsukia.
In view of that understanding, we cannot accept arrangements that perpetuate the entire area merely as a disputed territory. The present Tripartite Agreement should therefore not be operationalised in a manner inconsistent with the political understanding reached during the Peace Talks.
The principles of estoppel and legitimate expectation are relevant to the political and constitutional accountability arising from negotiated understandings. The understandings reached as of 31st October 2019 cannot simply be disregarded by subsequent administrative or political action. The Government of India must honour the confidence and expectations generated by the Peace Process.
Equally, the responsibility for negotiating and concluding the Naga political settlement cannot be transferred to State political leaders. The principal political dialogue is between the Government of India and the Naga Nationalist Groups. The remaining matters require appropriate constitutional forums and democratic political processes. This makes the signing of the Accord an urgent and necessary priority.
A Call for Political responsibility
During this transitional period, the Government of India should refrain from entering into arrangements concerning Naga areas that could prejudice or complicate the political settlement. Likewise, State Governments must exercise their constitutional powers with due regard to the political transition created by the Peace Talks.
We are concerned that political interests in Nagaland have increasingly become intertwined with the promise of an early political solution. Slogans such as “election for solution” and “paving the way for solution” have repeatedly accompanied elections, while the political process itself remains incomplete. Prolonging negotiations should never become politically convenient for any stakeholder.
At the same time, the weakening of Tribal Bodies, Gaon Burah institutions and other traditional civic institutions is a matter of serious concern. These institutions are fundamental to the distinct socio-political character of the Naga people and must be strengthened, not diminished.
We are approaching eighty years of our political journey. Many of our elders who sacrificed their lives and dedicated themselves to the foundations of the Naga political movement are no longer with us, while many others are advancing in age. The responsibility now rests upon our generation.
Let this 80th Independence Day become an anchoring point for political unity and decisive action. Let us move beyond recrimination and suspicion. Let us recognise the different stages of the Peace Process as part of our collective political history. Let us defend our rights with firmness, but also with restraint, diplomacy and statesmanship.
I call upon all Naga nationalists, political leaders, Tribal Bodies, Gaon Burah institutions, civil society organisations and the Naga people to come together and formulate a concrete course of action for the completion of the political settlement.
May we have the wisdom to preserve what our forefathers secured, the courage to complete what they began, and the foresight to establish institutions worthy of future generations.
With faith in our people and prayer to the Almighty God for guidance, let this 80th Independence Day mark a new beginning—towards unity, political consolidation, peace and an honourable and enduring settlement of the Naga political issue.
Praise the Lord.
Kuknalim
