Is Honourable Solution to the Indo-Naga Political Conflict Possible at All?

The term “honourable” has become the most irresistible word for any Naga debating or reflecting on the ongoing Indo-Naga political talk. Unsurprisingly, it has found expression in both the “Framework Agreement” and “Agreed Positions”. However, the manner and trend in which the Indo-Naga talks are being carried out, of late, makes one wonder if there is going to be any honourable solution at the end of the day. It certainly makes me wonder if this term has been reduced into a merely fashionable expression. What is this thing called honourable anyway?
Keeping the above concern at the background, let us take a look at some of our own Naga cultural practices with which honour was mostly associated with. There are two that stand out, namely, ‘Feast of Merit’ and ‘Head-hunting’. The performers of the feast and the warriors used to be given a high honour. They were the definition and embodiment of the values and ideals of the Naga cultures; in other words, they lived out those ideals and values such as discipline, courage, honesty, justice, patriotism, sacrifice, hard-work, etc. Honor is about just living, or living justly. Thus, to be honourable is to exemplify values, ideals and norms of the people both in words and in deeds. Such people embody and inspire, and also protect and promote the core values of the people. They were the living institutions of learning. Honour was something to be earned and recognised through one’s noble deeds for the community. Most importantly, it was never something that is “negotiated” or “bought” or “exchanged”.

Outside the Naga culture, I am particularly drawn to the intriguing Tamil culture of Sangam in relation to warfare: that as a warrior, it is dishonourable either to receive injury at the back or to cause injury at the back of the other. It was interpreted respectively as fleeing from fighting which is a sign of cowardice or betrayal and attacking a person who is not ready or willing to fight. There is absolutely no honour in fighting someone who is unequal or unwilling to fight. Thus central to this practice is the identification of an honourable warrior with ideals and virtues like fairness, equality and courage.

Do we get the above connotations of honour or honourable in the ongoing Indo-Naga political talks? Are the talks likely to result in honourable solution judging by the conditions under which the talks are being held? Perhaps, a little history digging may be helpful. When the Indo-Naga conflict became so intense with the smoke going up and the blood flowing down from the Naga hills incessantly, there was an urgent necessity to broker peace and bring respite to the Naga hills since the warring parties were not in a position to have any dialogue: the Nagas under Naga National Council wanted independence and the Indian state was hell bent on bringing the Nagas within the Indian Union. Amidst this impasse, we learned that the Naga People’s Convention was formed. In its first convention held at Kohima from 22nd – 26th August 1957, A. Kevichusa, the first Naga graduate and a government officer then, is said to have proposed the idea that any attempt to find solution must be a “satisfactory political settlement”. It is a stroke of genius to come up with such slogan at that point of time in history. He was truly a pathfinder. Among others, it was meant to save the honour of the Nagas. Probably, this slogan appealed to the Nagas and set the tone for the entry of cognate terms like “honourable”, “just” or “acceptable” into the Indo-Naga talks in search of possible solution. In this way, Kevichusa had offered a key locution to help the Nagas navigate our path in the uncharted political jungle.