One of the immediate ensuing questions that must arise in the imagination of not only the Naga public but especially the Naga leadership, now that a ‘peace accord’ has been signed, is this – How best can we move forward from this unfolding historic opportunity in a way that preserves and maintains the rich Naga tradition that has been the basis of the quest for both sovereignty and uniqueness? This is a question that not only demands critical engagement but calls-forth for the honouring of past visionaries and leaders in a way that once again awakens and unite the Naga dream of self-governance.The aftermath of any political dialogue that has run its course, and one that has reached the extent of the signing of an accord, is the beginning of competing claims and power-plays over the nature of how that accord will be materialized for the years ahead. Regardless of how the Naga future is conceptualized and fleshed out by Naga leaders going forward, the Modi-led government will now necessarily be a part of that journey not only in that they are the co-architects of the new accord, but more importantly, in that they can claim to be the leadership that understood, affirmed and promoted the uniqueness of the Naga culture and identity.
The reality of being dialogue-partners who have officially shook hands on an accord means that the construction and formation of the Naga ‘Christian’ nationalism and the ‘Hindu’ activism is now more closely bound up in a shared space than before, that will lead to new and subtle contestations overtime. The proposed centenary celebration of Rani Gaidinliu as a national treasure, and the building of a temple and a museum in honour of her name, in the state of Nagaland, is a curious development that must be understood within these emerging trends.
While this is not the place to revisit the formation of the Heraka identity, we must briefly glance through the historicity of that formation within the Ze-liang-rong (Zeme, Liangmei, Rongmei) community as located in the state of Manipur, Nagaland and particularly Assam, to understand the politics of what celebrating the centenary year of Gaidinliu now might disclose for us.
First, the Heraka, as it is known today, is a religious reform movement which was started in the late 1920s by Haipou Jadonang, a Rongmei Naga in Manipur. Jadonang championed a new religious cult called ‘Charaa Rek’ which was derived from the traditional Rongmei religious practice. While Jadonang introduced minor reforms to these practices, he did not completely go against what he believed were age-old Naga traditional practices. He was also known to have organized his followers into an armed revolutionary group, probably due to the impending Kuki and British threat. The British administration in particular, who were always frightful of a messianic uprising, implicated Jadonang in a false trial, there by ending his life through capital punishment.
Second, Rani Gaidinliu, who was active mostly after the independence of India in 1947, was primarily operative in the North Cachar Hills in Assam. By the early 1960s she became an iconic figure in Assam, and arguably outside as well. It was under her leadership that Heraka as a religion was understood to have developed into the ‘modern’ form that we witness today. By the 1970s, Gaidinliu’s close formal interaction with prominent Hindu leaders imbued Heraka with elements of Hindu teachings and practices. In 1973 Gaidinlui visited New Delhi to meet the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi,but was also known to spend her time meeting with several Hindu leaders, who encouraged her to embrace the tenets of Hinduism and helped her identify Heraka as a vanvasi (forest dwellers) which is locatable within the larger Hindu tradition. That Gaidinlui was invited to attend the World Hindu Meet at Prayag by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) by 1979 indicates her close affinities and strong bonds with both Hindu leaders and the Hindu tradition.
Third, Heraka - which was really the Zeliangrong religious movement in North Cachar Hills - was successful not only because of the iconic leadership of Gaidinliu and the provision of theological and even financial support of the right-wing Hindu organizations, but also because the North Cachar hills as a region was largely unaffected by the Naga nationalist movement. This could be because the majority of the Zeliangrong population, who proclaim themselves as Christians, are predominantly located in Manipur and Nagaland.
While the modern Heraka practitioners will continue to claim the distinctiveness of their reform movement and their identity, the right-wing Hindus would not only interpret the articulation of this claim for uniqueness as the distinctive marker of what actually makes them Hindu, but also cite this to affirm the greatness of the tolerant and inclusive civilization that is Hindu.
Therefore, while the political implications of the RSS backing the centenary celebration of Gaidinliu might now be more easily discernable, the unopposed support by the current state government and governor of Nagaland, given the current political climate, must be interrogated wisely.
While the leadership of Gaidinliu may well have been an exemplary one for his followers and even other religious leaders, in the current climate when the Naga nationhood and consciousness is geared towards imagining a new future together, it is imperative that Nagas promote the celebration of the many visionaries who have committed themselves to the Naga cause(in whatever form they knew best), rather than a leader who was at best unconcerned about the Naga nation and its struggles, and who would not have understood the significance of what ‘peace’ and ‘sovereignty’ for the Nagas mean today.
