Oddly, India has acknowledged the uniqueness and history of Nagas’ entity despite betrayals by India in the Indo-Naga history. The 16 Point Agreement led to formation of the Indian state of Nagaland, without which Nagas would have had very little voice as a mere district under Assam State.
The Indian Government after learning the true consequencesfrom NNC’s Independence demand that would involve all Naga lands in Myanmar historically unfamiliar to India, the 9 Point Agreement may not have materialised as per the Nagas’ wishes which would bring all Nagas under one unified administrative unit. Similarly, the 16 Point Proposal of transferring contiguous Naga ancestral lands to Nagaland state had simply kept ‘open for future negotiation,’ as India could not politically affordanother international issue of involving Naga lands in Myanmar at the time. Yet, India’s statement of‘keeping the issue for future negotiation’ has givenlegitimate rights to Nagasto continue the pursuance ofits Sovereign goal.
A reminder from the 16 Point Agreement as stated under “Acts of Parliament” says;
“No act of law passed by the Union Parliament affecting the following provisions shall have legal force in Nagaland unless specifically applied to it by a majority vote of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly.
Few implications from Article 371 (A)also safeguard the following;
(1) The Religious or Social Practices of the Nagas.
(2) Justice according to Naga Customary Laws.
(3) Ownership and transfer of land and its resources, etc.”
With regards to signing the 16-Point ‘Proposal’ of July, 1960, Nehru stated, ‘we have always made political approach to make “these people” friends and citizens of India.’ Referring Nagasto as “these people” is more than an insult to the Naga entity and proves it is in his knowledge that Nagaland is a land that will be kept occupied by India’s Armed forces. Nehru had also declared in the Lok Sabha August, 1960 that, “there is no such thing as a Naga Federal Government established by Phizo except on paper.” But on contrary, an international cease-fire agreement, also the first Indo-Naga cease-fire, was officially signed between two National governments, ‘the Federal Government of Nagaland and the Government of India’ on May 25, 1964.
If the GOI is serious about the Naga issue for a peaceful settlement, the first step is for India to remove DAA & AFSPA from Nagaland in respect ofNaga Rights. An attack in Manipur and does not justify imposing DAA in Nagaland. More so, a Peace Accord and AFSPA cannot go hand in hand. While so, an international issue is expected to be maintained through the Ministry of External Affairs.
The 3 August Peace Accord signed between the NSCN(IM) and the GOI is worth noting more as a progressive political development rather than the awaited settlement thus far.
Who will and who are to be the stakeholders for a final Naga settlement is not for Delhi to decide. Interlocutor R.N.Ravi had already stated that ‘peace talks’ between GOI and NSCN(IM) for a final settlement of the Naga issue was between India and ‘Nagas’ and not between GOI and ‘NSCN(IM)’ which politicallydoes not picture the majority stakeholders.As such, contents determining the Indo-Naga political bargains or agreements in the Framework Agreement cannot remain undisclosed to the stakeholderswho demand ‘Inclusiveness.’
Because if history speaks, the most significant of all achievements in the course of Naga political struggle in principle is still the National Plebiscite conducted on May 16, 1951 where citizens of Naga tribes and respective villages from long distances in an overwhelming 99.9 % turnout voted for the ‘sovereignty’ of NAGALAND. The mammoth participation is still practically the mandate in Naga history affirming the 14th August, 1947 Independent declaration. Subsequently, adoption of the constitution of Nagaland by NNC brought together the Hongking Government of Free Nagas and the Naga National Council to establish the Federal Government of Nagaland on March 22, 1952. This people’s mandate by participationstrengthened the Naga Tatar Hoho(Naga Parliament) and the Naga National Council, crediting A.Z. Phizo as the father figure of Naga Nation.
Times lead to new developments and so do leaders change. On an occasion of Naga Independence day, NNC/FGN
Kedahge Brig.(retd.) S. Singnya reaffirmed the stand on the Covenant of Reconciliation where signatories were Brig. (Retd.) S. Singnya himself, Chairman Isak Chishi Swu and Chairman S.S. Khaplang. Mr.Singnya stressed that Naga solution sans unity of Nagas will prove to be a historical blunder and further reiterated the unconditional unity agreed between GPRN/NSCN and NNC/FGN at Monyakshu, July 15 with the objective to strengthen the Covenant of Reconciliation.On Naga talks, R.N. Ravi also said that while NSCN(K) declined talks, it placed a condition that all groups should be taken on board.
As the torch bearers ‘in Delhi,’ the NSCN(IM) collective leadership have yet to retrospect the March 28, 2014 Lenten Agreement, Naga Concordant signed on August 26, 2011 and the ‘Covenant of Reconciliation.’ Nagas as Christians know what a Covenant is and what Nagaland for Christ is.
Nagas want INCLUSIVENESS to ‘identify the legitimate torch bearer.’ No single group alone can afford a settlement without people’s will. At this very juncture, every able Naga from grassroots, not just invitees or selective NGOs, has a vital role for participation towards nation building. I would not hesitate to admit that Dr. S.C.Jamir is among one living legend and so is Rio a national leader representing Nagaland.Looking at the current affairs, NPF won with a majority to lead DAN’s 3rd term. The magic of all-party government whatsoever with 60 members, comprises of selective NLF members not considering each legislature is elected by a majority called mandate. Any political party’s High Authority has every legal right to make a decision. Still, however powerful the assumed authority is, people’s mandate is not a thing to play with.
Vire (Avi) Nukhu
Kohima.
