Kekhrie Yhome
kekhrie@yahoo.com
I. How to read future?
The future will always be unknown. However, our knowledge of the future is guided by hypothesis; our experience of the future is based on teleology (causes and effect); and, our prediction of the future is based on the principle of rational choice theories. The task of any subjective or objective reading of the future revolves around the twin paradox of speculation and judgement, commonly identified as interpretation.
Therefore, there is no significance of any truth or surety when various interpretations are projected as views or opinions on the current Peace Talks between Government of India and NSCN-IM. These opinions or views are either subjective or objective responds to an unknown future. These interpretations are premised on the possible outcomes of the Peace Talks, which is speculated upon or given a judgement. The sum of human passions (for, against, or indifference) involved in these interpretations pathologically reflects a mixture of anxiety, fear, hope, cynicism, jealously, skepticism, or purpose. The list can be extended, depending on which side of the fence one is sitting or wants to sit.
On the latest prediction of the Peace Talks, we have the General Secretary of NSCN-IM himself saying, soon after landing in Dimapur from Delhi on 17th October, 2012, to the local press, that the “ball is now in the court of the Indian government.” Having submitted a Wish-List to Government of India, some time now, we have a Chief Negotiator of two-negotiating parties himself proclaiming that he does not know what will be the future outcome! This kind of statement is expected in a protracted negotiation! This is an outcome of revolutionaries becoming liberal democrats!
However, the usual round of interpretation is in circulation this October yet again. Ibobi Singh, Chief Minister of Manipur, has expressed his helplessness to help without knowing the details of a possible agreement, while assuring that there “is nothing that has the potential to cause unrest in Manipur by the ongoing Naga peace process.” Chief Minister of Assam Tarun Gogoi too gave his interpretation that there is no problem with “emotional integration,” on a side reference to Chief Minister of Nagaland Neiphiu Rio’s statement, but hitting out hard: “I am aware of the Naga peace talks and that a solution is nearing soon. This is a positive development but we cannot give our land. We have been saying this before and we will continue to resist this in future.”
II. How to read politics?
The future will always be unknown. However, in politics, our understanding of the future comes from opinion polls, both popular and unpopular opinions. The usual round of anxiety expressed by other states where Nagas live is not hot news anymore. The status-quoist refusal to part with Naga inhabited areas into an integrated territory is already explicitly made.
Since the future will never be known beforehand, particularly in the intricacies of political games, we resort to popular methods of learning what is the next logical conclusion. Different people reach different conclusions using different methods: realist, pragmatic, realpolitik, neo-realist, etc. Methods are ways of seeing things, and giving perspectives. Methods allow us to speculate or pass judgement, on events, on situations – as possibilities or impossibilities – in order to arrive at an alternative arrangement.
What is however new with the present cycle of events cannot be overshadowed by previous readings! This time, starting with Dr. S.C Jamir, there was no refutation of his recently shared “road map” for Naga future, unlike unhappier old times. Secondly, Ibobi Singh, has been holding an unusual week-long secret consultation with Union Home Sushil Kumar Shinde, Government of India; and United Committee Manipur and All Manipur United Clubs Organization are now harping on Pre-Merger status of Manipur. Thirdly, Tarun Gogoi, has taken the role of what was Ibobi’s position, earlier; whether Assamese populace would be mobilized for another carnage is another issue! The Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh Nabam Tuki has made it clear about its “no objections to Centre-Naga peace pact,” while softly reminding that it will also bring peace to Arunachal.
The fate of NSCN-IM’s Utopian List, one can be seemingly assured as of now, is presently safe in the hands of these regional and national Congress (I) stalwarts! The only riddle is the non-Congress government of Nagaland; but with the masterly stroke of a pre-election 2013 pet project agenda in Joint Legislature Forum, Chief Minister Rio has not only ensured the endorsement of Congress (I) but also the presence of his government’s involvement.
III. What is the politics of negotiation?
Intimacies have governed recent human history of love and hate, and politics. It is not a new venture. Some of these intimacies are exposed to public domain only when the act has been done! These intimacies are no longer secret when it reaches its logical conclusion, or when the purpose has been served. Politics shall always make strange bedfellows, now and even in the future too!
Politics as an economy of self-interest and self-continuity is not a new political thought. The ideal imagination of the present Peace Talks is therefore a negotiation that will aim in serving the maximum interests of NSCN-IM, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Union of India. Remember the Prisoner’s Dilemma in Game/Decision Theory? Was it a Win-Win or Win-Lose or Lose-Lose situation? The Peace Talks is seemingly taking a long time because NSCN-IM initially wanted the icing as well as the cake, which India will think a hundred times over!
In the art of negotiation, the spirit of give and take is a necessary precondition. However, in a state of negotiation, there are no spirits – it is solely based on bargaining powers. The outcome of sharing power, between two or even more entities, is translated but contained through this little game consisting of negotiation, politics, and intimacy!
IV. What is a ‘suffering truth’?
Since the future will always be unknown, NSCN-IM’s future politics can only be evaluated by what has taken place in the past, the question of history repeating itself or learning from history, and in what is called the present. After all, only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches! There is no one to blame for wearing a shoe one has chosen for oneself, whether it is a cheap or expensive designer shoe! Thinking of NSCN-IM’s future politics also reminds us about the future of NSCN-IM’s politics. Only La Rochefoucauld comes to mind at this darkest hour before dawn: “we promise according to our hopes and perform according to our fears.”
Has the NSCN-IM, which was allegedly formed on the ground that Shillong Accord betrayed the cause of Sovereignty for the Nagas, reached its own dead end? Shillong Accord may have been the best of what was possible then, as some would like to argue, given the then prevailing situation. Is NSCN-IM unwillingly facing this foot in mouth syndrome? Only an honest, reconciliatory, forgive-seeking statesmanship, of a fresh public spectacle, can reinvent collective memory. This is however not a guarantee that history forgives or qualifies one to forgives on behalf of the other.
Does the NSCN-IM want to stand alone on the winner’s podium, claiming another trophy called what was the best during the worst of time? Who has profited most from Indo-Naga conflict? Who suffers and remains abandoned, unknown, because of Indo-Naga conflict? The future of NSCN-IM’s politics will remain to be seen, whether the idea of honourable solution is modeled beyond a BSF battalion or land allotment in Dimapur.
Will the NSCN-IM, resonating a “we will not fail during our times,” persist with a stubborn No, if Government of India fails to concede to their initial demand for sovereignty? Will they rather stand by their original political ideology and objective, even if it means going to war again, or settle for some piecemeal solutions? The test of being thick skinned or being a jelly shall need to be ultimately proven.
Is the NSCN-IM trying to indoctrinate the Naga population with a new set of vocabulary that spells a new interpretation on sovereignty? What are all these name-droppings like ‘supra-State’, ‘asymmetrical federalism’, ‘quasi-federal’, or ‘shared sovereignty’? These are not heavy conceptual tools in political thought and governance – it can be explained without any ambiguity, even using examples, to the Naga public, not necessarily through consultations, but through the media.
What is all this routine and fuss about NSCN-IM’s consultation with the Naga public? Is it a sort of internalized referendum? Is it a motivated drill that is procedurally executed, should the need arise one day, to justify that the popular mandate of the Naga public was obtained? Is it ruse towards a settlement, already negotiated, and ready to be signed, giving the colourful effects of public consultation with the Nagas at large? What sort of strategic consultation and wanton knowledge is the NSCN-IM seeking from the Naga public? If NSCN-IM is just seeking for a talking-cure session with the Naga public, it is just for a feel good factor. The writing of history just now, needless to say, is interested only in what happened, not in the numbers.
V. The language of ball(s):
The language of politics, as a discourse, or as an art, we came to know only very recently, is not just rhetoric, but also includes aphorism. There is a clear line in manufacturing consent and promoting a democratic space. There is also a difference of symptoms whether the directions of such language is aimed at hanging up their boots!
Methanielie Solo, the evergreen Angami popular singer, popularly known for his initial philosophically soulful Jütakhrie ballads and also for his late Nagamese satirical songs, caricatures a football match situation where the player himself has become the referee as well as the goalkeeper.
By tossing and passing the ball to Government of India, NSCN-IM may be expecting the former to score the goal. If the level of Peace Talks has reached this level, it is not something unexpected. What will be expected is whether the Government of India scores the ball or not! Further, and most importantly, in case the ball is scored, whether the Naga audience will rise up in unison exalting bravo! Or, bare their bums, and walk away, like the civil reception given to Jawaharlal Nehru and U Nu, when they both visited Kohima in 1953!
The author is a columnist for Eastern Mirror’s Thursday edition, featuring A Little Chat
