Kaka D. Iralu
I would first of all like to express my sincere thanks to all the I.M. dignitaries and cadres who took the trouble to honor us with their visit. It is also apparent that there are many in the I.M. as well as the Government of India who are seriously committed to finding a solution to the protracted Indo-Naga conflict that has defied a solution for all these 69 years. In this committed endeavor, I have also found R.N.Ravi to be a sincere person who now perhaps know the Naga people and their political stand better than even Nehru because he is talking to even persons like me without any superiority attitude or rather “superior race” attitude.
However, be that as it may, the NSCN I.M. Angami Public Organization (A.P.O.) meet has raised a lot of questions in my mind which I could not fully express in the meeting due to lack of time. Allow me therefore to put these questions into writing so that other tribes can also ponder the issues with us.1. In his speech, the Home Minster of the I.M. Mr. Raising had first said that the National Plebiscite of May 15, 1951 was the foundation on which the Nagas had made their political stand clear to India and the world. However, this already declared position was to be a nation among the nations of the world. Let all Nagas note that this declaration was not for a state within the union of India or to have a “shared sovereignty” with India. The Naga national Plebiscite was never for any such position with or under India. However Raising on the later part of his speech (at least in the Nagamese version and also alluded in the written English version) said that Inter-dependence would form the foundation for all future relations with India through the present talks.
Now the Naga stand for complete independence does not mean that we will have no associations with any other countries in anything. I fact, after the successful conduct of the Plebiscite in 1951, on Dec 29, 1951, Phizo had written to Nehru that Nagas were even willing to be under the President of an Indian citizen for a stated period “in order to allay the fear and suspicion of India.” (Phizo’s letter to Nehru aboard the SS Lushai, Naga Saga p.416) Then again on July 26, 1960 Phizo offered India to have military outposts in Nagaland if they so required it. (Phizo’s speech to the international Press Conference in London on July 26. 1960). Phizo and the NNC’s position was one of, first, recognition of Naga Independence by India and other countries, and only after that, co-operation and inter-dependence with any neighboring countries.
But the present I. M. position now appears to be a willingness to surrender our declared independence for the sake of inter-dependence with India. This would amount to a betrayal of the blood of over 200,000 Naga who had sacrificed their lives in defending our declared independence. Such an act would also be a betrayal of the 1951 Naga national Plebiscite upon which alone stands the validity of the sovereignty and independence of the Naga nation. It is a declaration that Nagas are a distinct nation- different from India or Burma or any other nations on earth. In the right procedure of political and legal matters, we should first be clear about the legality and validity of our own independence before we talk about inter-dependence with other countries.
Another personal opinion that I wish to express in this connection of inter-dependence is this:
2. The present talks are having clauses that are talking about having six Battalions of Naga army and Para military for maintenance of internal security. It also has clauses where the Indian government will be allowed to have as many Indian army cantonments as they require to be stationed in Nagaland. Then it goes on to talk about joint military defense strategies against possible foreign invasion of (what can only be termed as) “interdependent Nagaland and Indian territories.” According to my information, there are many other clauses but for today’s article what has been revealed will suffice. Now under such an “Interdependence Agreement,” if India insists that India requires 100,000 Indian troops to be stationed in Nagaland, then what will the I. M. say in reply? We also cannot escape the implications that in case of a political crisis, whether the 100,000 Indian troops will bow down to the decision of 6000 Naga army personnel or the 6000 will have to bow down to the overwhelming majority of 100, 000. The inescapable question is: Who will be compelled to bow down to whom in a beautifully worded inter-dependence or shared sovereignty where sovereignty is supposed to lie with the people? Here again, hardly 4 million as compared to over a billion!
Also supposing India further insists that Nuclear Missile launching pads should be stationed in our mountains aimed towards China to prevent a possible Chinese invasion of India, then what will be the I.M.’s response be to such an Indian Government insistence under an already signed Indo-Naga Inter-dependence agreement? And In case another war breaks out between India and China, will China fire over the heads of Nagas into Indian territories or into Nagaland where Indian missiles are firing into Chinese territories?
I hope the I. M. military experts have not forgotten the Cuban Nuclear Crisis of Oct 1962 where a nuclear war was nearly triggered off when American spy planes discovered nuclear missile launching sites which were deployed by Russia and aimed at American targets from Cuban soil. If that nuclear crisis had not been defused through very difficult negotiations between America and Russia, Cuba would have been blasted from the face of the earth because they had, in the first place, allowed Russians to deploy anti-American missile sites in their own country.
Most probably, that agreement too was done through some similar interdependence pact done between Cuba and Russia like the present case between India and Nagaland! The fate of the Nagas will not be any different from the Cuban fate, if details of the present Agreement are not revealed to the Naga public before the I.M. signs anything with India.
In the light of all these possibilities and dangers, I personally think that the no further consultations with tribal organizations should be held by the I. M. until the Indian Government and the I.M. FIRST discloses the details of their agreement to the Naga public for open discussion. Also, with all due respect to the Naga Hoho and the tribal Hohos, they also must remember that they are all, but “non-political” and “non-governmental “tribal organizations that the Naga nation had not mandated them to sign anything on behalf of the nation with any other governments. That mandate belongs to the NNC and FGN alone. Here, let us not repeat the Naga Peoples Convention mistake of 1960 where they cleverly bypassed the Naga nation and dumped us into the Indian union through the 16 point Agreement. Their act was a treacherous betrayal of the 1951 Plebiscite which rather than solving the problem instead made it to drag on for all these long and bloody 55 years.
