The Past Randomly Imposed Editions of GOI-Naga Accords/Agreements: A Divergent View

In retrospection, the Naga populace may agree to the claims of some senior Naga politicians and intellectuals that the past Agreements were drafted by the Naga leaders themselves. However, besides the i) Naga Memorandum to Simon Commission of Jan, 1929 and ii) The 9 Point (Hydari Agreement) of June, 1947which were framed in the true soundness of mind by the Naga Leaders and the NNC. The subsequent iii) 16 Point Agreement of July, 1960by the Naga People’s Convention and iv) the Shillong Accord of Nov, 1975 by the representatives of the Naga Federal Government, behind the 1951 Naga Plebiscite for Independence was not reached in the true soundness of mind and ill-gotten. When the Naga people had already endorsed for Independence by the Plebiscite of 1951, the NPC had betrayed and bartered away the Naga Peoples mandate with Article 371A. If supposedly the Naga people’s aspiration for independence was accomplished, Article 371A will not be required at all and the same can never be equated with sovereignty.Nevertheless, instead of pointing our fingers at the Naga Leaders representing the NPC or the representatives of the Naga Federal Government, the onus of culpability rests with the then Prime Minister of India Shri. Jawaharlal Nehru. Who had successfully mastered and stage-managed the “Carrot and Stick” approach in dealing with the Naga people. A policy of rewards and punishment to induce behavior, used in international relations. The extension of the concept in the “Bargaining Theory” of international politics which assumed significance post 1945 period. Which is invariably a form of coercion, use of violence by military power to bargain the objectives and negotiating from strength but where the nature of negotiation is a mere myth. Perhaps, the present Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi will not toe the line of the same Nehruvian policy.
The banning of ACAUT in 2014 as alleged through the press release by MIP NSCN(IM) appears to be a myopic blunder. It never occurred to a lay Naga conscience like this writer, that the mighty NSCN(IM) will stoop so low to approve its MIP to publicize the anguish over “One Government One Tax” without engaging in a dialogue to seize the opportunity. The Naga people had already vouched for collection of tax as mandated in Point No. 5 (Taxation) of the Nine Point Agreement in June, 1947. Quote – “That the Naga National Council will be responsible for the imposition, collection, and expenditure of land revenue and house tax, and of such other taxes as may be imposed by the Naga National Council” unquote. The clause connotes the then authority of 1(one)single entity the NNC and not multiple factions. In this circumstances, how can NSCN(IM) remain a lame duck when the Naga publics are burdened with rampant taxation by multiple factions. To legitimize the right for taxation, as envisaged in clause 5 of Nine Point Agreement, all the NPGs are obliged to converge and sing the bitter sweet symphony of “One Government One Tax”. The public outcry and stance of ACAUT is for a legitimate cause of the Naga people.
The way forward can be charted out by echoing the RBI Governor, Dr. Raghuram G.Rajan’sapproach on ‘Development’ and ‘Nationalism’ via the “Indian Path” as spoken in a recent interview with Ms. BarkhaDutt, NDTV. That India must choose its own original path of development and not just blindly emulate any existing model. And it is up to India to set up an example by following a different path and not following other countries blindly on the issue of ‘Nationalism’, when it took many centuries to evolve for the democratic western nations and the quite recent totalitarian method of the nations in the east.Apart from the existing diplomacy instruments around ‘Democratic Diplomacy’, ‘Secret Diplomacy’, ‘Totalitarian Diplomacy’, ‘Diplomacy by Conference’, ‘Plebiscitary Diplomacy’, or ‘Personal Diplomacy’, the “Naga Path” may include a touch of all the above and predominantly “Village Diplomacy”in the approach for “Development” and “Nationalism”.
Self-assuredly, the present debacle on ‘Tax’ and approach to ‘Final Agreement with GOI’will be resolved by the NSCN(IM) without resorting to the “Carrot and Stick” Nehruvian policy, but by trailing the NaMo policy of dialogue in the true soundness of mind as perceived. Kuknalim!

V.T. Chakhesang
vt.chakhesang@gmail.com