Debate centring around haipei Rani Gaidinliu’s contribution and recognition has come up once again in Nagaland State. It came as a reaction to Government’s proposal , in honour of her, for the establishment of Library-cum- Museum-Hall .This nature of debate/issue presages possible surfacing of similar controversy in some parts of Naga society in generations to come. For there is likeliness that more works of recognition will be heaped upon Rani Gaidinliu. Recent release of coins of Rs 100 and Rs 5 as commemorative act of her birth centenary is a case in point. And those works of recognition are likely to encourage individuals or organizations for establishing memorial work, if need arises, anywhere in Naga society. Negative reactions are likely to raise against relevant assertion/plea for use/initiative to use the outstanding recognition accorded haipei Rani Gaidinliu. In this regard it seems that the matter of her contributions and recognitions would assume a central stage in asserting for acceptance of the twin concerns and in rejecting the concerns. Opposition to her social and religious identity, the title accorded her and place of birth may not be able to stand to reason if used them for rejecting her in any parts of Naga society or elsewhere. So, some parameters are necessary to be posited to highlight the issue.
Haipei Rani Gaidinliu being a freedom fighter is questioned asking whose freedom fighter—Indian or Naga? First parameter is that even if someone refuses to identify her as Indian or Naga freedom fighter, her freedom fighterhood cannot be confuted or denied. For she had fought for freedom for which history is witness. On the part of India she was accepted as freedom fighter and averred/accorded her freedom fighterhood. The recognition was primarily based on her fight against the British Government which was common enemy of India and Rani. And the period of her movement was coincided with that of Indian freedom struggle under Gandhi’s leadership. And the two movements occurred within the same territorial context—British India and that had, politically and historically, given rise to spirit of oneness and solidarity between haipei Rani Gaidinliu and Indian nationalists or freedom fighters. To Indian freedom fighters her fight against the British Government was a gulf of wind blowing towards the falling direction of the imperialist power in India. The struggle of the Indian freedom fighters also unleashed similar effect on the colonialist power. Therefore, though she fought for the freedom of her people, her struggle was accepted as good as that of the Indian freedom fighters when viewed it in term of results and spirit. Her struggle posing as ”potent source of danger” to the British authority in the region was an incredible contribution to freedom struggle.
Our people try to undermine the legendary stature of haipei Rani Gaidinliu and her freedom fighterhood. So, the second parameter is that it is necessary to reason them out of that treatment and attitude under certain parameters. a) Haipei Rani Gaidinliu, whether one recognized her or not, fought for the freedom of some section of Naga people of Manipur, Assam and Naga hills. Those people belong to great family of the Nagas. Though her struggle was launched without wider sway in other part of Naga society, her struggle deserves to be averred as freedom struggle. So, though it might not be in the nature and extent done by A.Z. Phizo, T. Sakhrie, etc., she who belonged to Naga family deserves to be called Naga freedom fighter as well. The problem lies in the non-recognition or failure to recognize her works. b) Among the outstanding Naga personalities who had created greater or political identity for the Nagas and place in history, haipei Rani Gaidinliu was one of them. This importance should not be trivialized with the issues pertaining to her birth place, her community, the title “Rani” ,etc. Such issues raised by someone are amounted to an attempt done to erase the greater image which those departed great souls of the Nagas made for entire Naga nation. That is detrimental to the young Naga nation.
Place for Rani Gaidinliu in other part of Nagalim is objected/opposed on being founder of Heraka. The sect is alien to Christian faith and practice. That is true. There may not be further debate on that. But that is no strong reason for opposing the plan of recognition of Rani in any part in Nagalim on the following grounds: 1) the Nagas are a nation (we assume it to be a nation) or emerging nation. In a nation there must be different, minor or major, religious folds. If someone prepares to deny this character of a nation he tries to destroy an essence of modern democratic nation/society; and 2) Naga nation is not a theocracy , for no single religion is allowed to guide the nation with direct divine rule ; ours is founded as democratic Christian society where freedom of religion is practiced on secular principles. If these characteristics are accepted as truism, then intolerance of other religious sects, faiths, if they pose no threat to the existence of the nation or to the citizens, is unjustified. In other words, any socio-political issue basing on the ground of religion , has no merit in secular and democratic society.
And, if memorial work of Rani is denied in other part of our nation, then the logic for doing the likes for other Naga leaders is likely to suffer, without justification, at the hands of others . If one’s place of birth, identity, etc. are kept in mind as prerequisites for recognition, then one has set a bad precedent in the recognition tradition. For,Naga socio-political history would be selective accounts only. On other hand, due /well recognition of each history of all sections of people of the nation is a soundest basis for the life of the nation. In north-east case India has tried to undo her past blunder by starting recognizing the history of the region for emotional integration without which its foundation is not secure.
From the quarter of a Naga national workers Rani is also accused of being anti- Nagas. In this regard the truth is that both sides, having one reason or other, had committed internecine atrocity. So, it is true that Rani’s group has done atrocity on NNC cadres. That cannot be concealed. Fact is fact. Yet ideological difference or the reason held by either party was behind the excess. If such excess is branded as being anti-Nagas, then which groups of Naga national workers are free from such excesses and be called genuine Naga national workers or anti-Nagas? The accusation is not well-founded and does not stand to reason either. If it is a befitting ground for not accepting her there is number of group of persons or parties which cannot find place for them in Naga soil in any generations to come.
In conclusion it can be said that haipei Rani Gaidinliu, as a pioneer tribal leader, had subscribed to immutable democratic ideals—freedom, justice and political equality. She was one of first person among the Naga women who raised the banner of freedom struggle in Manipur and Naga society in north-east India. Her freedom struggle whether accepted or rejected, would remain in golden inscription in history. It seems that no amount of ignorance on the part of the people would erase the inscription. Instead there is most likeliness that the more people debate for discrediting her the more her relevance will be discovered and made it ascend on ethno-political horizon of people of the region and India. In that sense every right thinking Naga has sound reason to appreciate the critics of haipei Rani Gaidinliu for spreading more things about her. In academic front more theses will come up on her life and works in universities. Her life will attract the syllabus makers and be studied her in academic institutions. Feminists also will be attracted to her feminist ideology and popularize it in many ways. Remember, no departed soul about whom many men penned remains voiceless but he/she still speaks up for himself or herself among the living.
