Population, territory, government and sovereignty are cardinal elements that characterised a nation state. A Memorandum submitted to the British Government in 1929 had roped in the above elements as rendered hereunder: (a) “our population numbering 1,02,000...have no social affinities with the Hindus or Mussalmans” – a definite reference to population; (b) “Our country within the administered area consists of more than eight regions..., and there are more regions outside the administered area...” – a descriptive extent of our territory; (c) “..., we also have much fear (that) the introduction of foreign laws and customs (will) supersede our own customary laws” – a pronouncement for a need of government; and (d) “... leave us alone to determine ourselves as in ancient times” – an absolute declaration of sovereignty.
Following the Framework Agreement which was signed by the GoI and the NSCM (IM) on August 3, 2015, much had been discussed on various hypotheses stemming from both fact and fake frameworks alleged to have been agreed upon by the parties involved. Contents of the terms that were circulated to have been hammered out by the parties had also been published in various media platforms, and the silence of the negotiating party had gathered spark to the mounting doubts. As a stakeholder, every citizen enjoys a right to decode the concerns for redressal (if already arrived at) and for perusal (if dialogue is in progress).
Nation without territory: In an article titled “Pan Naga-Hoho under Framework Agreement” contributed by KK Sema, it may be mentioned that the Hoho’s function will transcend “the territorial limits of any state and will be able to operate in any state where Nagas are settled in the region”. Besides, MLAs representing Nagas from our neighbouring states including Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh (no mention was made in respect of Nagas living in Myanmar) shall be selected as members of the Hoho. Also, the interlocutor himself asserted on various instances that territorial integrity of the neighbouring states shall remain intact. These three deductions said it all that the much hyped amalgamation of every Naga-inhabited area into a single political unit with a definitive territorial limit had been bludgeoned. Delineated territory, an essential element of a state, was consigned to further disintegration even before a superstructure state takes its shape. Trysting with the priced political ideologies of sovereignty and integration, the latter had off late gained momentum at the expense of the former. Now, it appears that even our responsibility to integrate and safeguard our ancestral lands bequeath to us by our forefathers is being abdicated.
Pan-Naga Hoho and its future: The Pan-Naga Hoho is stated to be a statutory body. Our general understanding of the term “statutory” means permitted or governed by statute or law. Any law or statute enacted by a government is subject to amendment unless it is rendered un-amendable. For the sake of wider connotation, it may be deconstructed that Pan-Naga Hoho is a creation of the parliament of India and so shall be rescinded as and when sanctioned by the parliament. This highly-sounded extra-territorial body may assume dynamics in its early formative years. Yet what is conspicuous is, since the fate of Article 35A (for the state of Jammu & Kashmir) hangs on judicial interpretation and Article 370 is being threatened to be obliterated from the Constitution, likewise, the proposed Pan-Naga Hoho will earn the wrath of certain sections giving that the body does not enjoy any definite territorial limit nor does it equip itself with a full constitutional protection. What have completely debased the credibility of the Hoho are its statutory status, its jurisdiction over ambiguous territory and its un-defined interim period: existing at the pleasure of the Indian parliament.
Contentious continuation of the All India Services: A two-page document made available via various networking sites talked of reservation of certain seats for the Nagas in UPSC recruitment exams. This implicitly implies that the present system of bureaucracy wherein selected Civil Servants are deputed to various states as a symbol of Central authority over states shall persist. Unfazed by all-powerful Pan-Naga Hoho, the civil servant community bids fair to implement the executive orders of the GoI in a partially relegated sovereign state of Nagaland. Then, what would be the nature of administration of the areas territorially placed under other states but politically congregated under Pan-Naga Hoho? Whereas there is no reservation on the question of continuation of the All India Services as it will infuse innovation and contribute towards nation building by gaining ideas from both the sides; what is still worth visiting is the role of the Company’s Civil Servants which has been vital in prolonging British rule in India. In myriad of angles, civil service is a symbol of authority, governance and imposition of ruler’s will over the ruled. Should we insist on our historical right, perhaps our negotiators need to re-paradigm their approach.
The rationality of the term “Nagalim”: Despite the narcissistic understanding of the name “Nagaland” by few professed nationalists who swore avowed distaste to early nationalists and architects of the present state, the name seemed to have permeated to various arenas at the international level with its wider usage around the world. The suffix “land” refers to not only the present state of Nagaland but can also be expanded to mean the land which are still pending but will rightfully be returned to us on conclusive settlement. In the absence of any detailed narration on the derivation of the term “Nagalim” by its protagonists, it may be speculated that the last two characters “IM” of the full term Nagalim may have been borrowed from the acronym NSCM (IM) wherein “IM” stands for Isaak-Muivah. A nation is not a private affair to be fancily named by an organization. To give a nation a name after an individual may, hereafter, be manipulated to let the next of kins to stake illegitimate claim over the governance of a nation. Everyone has been part of a national movement in one’s own way and its nomenclature, which is so sacred and sacrosanct to everyone alike, besides being our identity, should be debated and agreed on by historicity, not by emotions.
Nation without nationals: With a 20-year long peace talk nearing a conclusive settlement as per unverified reports, the negotiating party has so long managed to remain elusive escaping responsibility in reaching out to their people whom they boastfully claim to represent. At the national level, they aggressively assert mandate; at the grassroot level, they are insulated from their own people. Considered views of intellectuals are summarily censored and tagged as anti-nationals. What good can a nation expect to prevail upon us amidst such preposterous approaches of those who projected themselves as negotiators but entered into secret agreements without the consent and assent of the nationals? What does our future has in store when our people are circumscribed and denied transparent access to the fundamentals of the political parleys, whose voice they theoretically envisions as sovereign? What would be the future of our Eastern brothers in Myanmar who hone on political dividend from their Big Brothers? What would be the fate of those who lives in our neighbouring states but could not physically integrate with us... to whom should they owe political and administrative allegiance? Can a nation exist without its defined territory complemented by equally definite nationals that are critical for policy formulation?
The recently evolved stratagem of extending olive branch on one hand and baiting a trap targeting those who ideologically differed with the deemed political conformity of the GoI is catalysing trust-deficit. A utopian talk on inclusiveness sans substantial gesture from the world’s largest democracy will invariably boomerang back. If the GoI fervently believe in finding an inclusive political settlement to the longest political conflict in Southeast Asia, it ought to restraint the long arm of the NIA, play down the fear of China factor in the region and directly get engaged with the people. An inclusive settlement entails taking both the extreme spectrums onboard to finally iron out the protruding differences. Selective approach may parochially be construed as not a solution in hand but a concerted scheme to further fragment the already relegated identity and polity of the Nagas.
What has had achieved way back in 1929 is achievable with improvised mechanism in 2017 and beyond unless it is impeded by artificial barrier.
