The price of sovereignty

Khekiye K. Sema [dropcap]I[/dropcap] was wondering how many Nagas have been following the international news concerning the student-led ongoing Hong Kong democracy protest. Sovereignty over Hong Kong was transferred to China by the United Kingdom on 1st July 1997 on a ‘One Country, two systems’ principle. Hong Kong has largely been functioning under a democratic system of individual freedom and universal suffrage unlike the Communistic regime in the Mainland China. The ongoing clash has been triggered by China wanting the pro-Beijing leaders to be elected while restricting those with questionable loyalties...an aberration of “one-party-one government”, “collective leadership” system. I was also wondering how many remember another student-led popular demonstration on 4th June 1989 at the Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China more known as the ‘89 Democracy Movement. Hu Yaobang, a Communist Party General Secretary was a liberal reformer. He was purged after losing a power struggle with the hardliners within the Party on the issue of economic and political reform. Hu had been vocal about inflation, the dwindling career prospects and the corruption within the Party elites. Upon his eventual death the University students approximating a million in strength assembled in the Tiananmen Square to mourn him and at the same time demanding Government accountability, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and restoration of worker’s control over industry. The students went on a hunger strike that galvanized demonstrators around the country. The protest spread across 400 cities. After an initial reconciliatory stance the Government finally declared martial law and the movement was ruthlessly crushed with their military might. In the aftermath of the crackdown, the government conducted widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists and strictly controlled coverage of all the events in the domestic press. The police and internal security forces were strengthened. Officials deemed sympathetic to the protests were demoted or purged. Such was the demonic strength of the “Collective Leadership of a One-party-one-government” system in China. This clearly depicts a picture of the kind of democracy or the lack of it, possible under a “one-party-one-government-Collective Leadership” hierarchy. Keep this in mind as we proceed further.The reason for the recap of the Chinese system is on the legitimate premises of questioning the rationality and relevance of introducing such an alien system in our own society... to enable the NPGs and the Nagas masses to dispassionately examine our circumstance. The Nagas and the NPGs need to focus on couple of issues with utmost seriousness. The following discourse is being initiated purely as an academic exercise around serious speculative assumptions without any hidden agenda or shadows being cast against any NSCN Factions: Should the dialogue of NSCN with the GoI ever come to some kind of a conclusion; Should an autonomous Status based on “One country, two systems” theory of Hong Kong come to fruitation, even if it is not equal to a full-fledged sovereignty; are the people of Nagaland prepared to embrace an alien culture of ‘The People’s Republic of Nagaland’ under the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) [which happens to be a common denominator of all the NPGs baring NNC/FGN]? The one thing the Nagas do not know too well is this: Is the “Yezabo” (Constitution) the same with all the other NSCN Factions as published by NSCN (IM)? All NPGs under the same banner of NSCN needs to educate the masses on their respective Constitutional status for all our sakes. I was also wondering how many Nagas have actually studied the “Yezabo” of the People’s Republic of Nagaland. The people have all been so desperately psyched by ‘out of control sovereignty Tax’ and death threats that elementary questions that could critically destabilise our lives in the future, have totally deserted our minds. NSCN is an incarnate political philosophy drawn from the Red Book of Chairman Mao Zedong with the exception of Christianity being “recognized as the State religion” (Part V Clause B Article 1). Everything else is the first cousin of the Red Book philosophy which the Chinese themselves have long since abandoned. Though the Preamble of the Yezabo begins with “We, the people of Nagaland”, the people of Nagaland seems to be the last to know about this. Further, from the NSCN (IM)’s perspective of championing the cause of integration of all the Naga inhabited areas, the very starting statement of the Preamble “We the people of Nagaland” is in stark contradiction to their stated objective. “Nagaland” in its present defined status is in exclusion of all the other Naga inhabited areas. Does this Yezabo therefore, apply to those beyond the State of Nagaland? Can this “Yezabo” be imposed on all the Nagas without it being adopted by the people? These are elementary questions that need clear answers. Part II Article I of this Yezabo states that (Quote): “There shall be one-party-one government system in Nagaland for such period of time as deemed necessary and expedient” (Unquote). The question is who decides the all important “period of time”? Who decides on the “necessary and expedient” factor? The answer of course we assume must be the “Collective Leadership”. The problem here is the fundamental fact that the “Collective Leadership” is not going to be manned by a heavenly body. They too are human beings and will be subjected to all the human frailties. If any circumstances do not fit their personal convenience, this system could go on forever since no statutory timeframe has been envisaged. No matter how much Nagas may berate our adversaries, the one thing Nagas have gotten used to, is the democratic definition of individual freedom that has been a part of the Naga life thus far as was the case even in the ancestral times. The other factor that troubles a mind is the business of “One-party-one government” system. When the present “Collective Leadership” supremos (Isak and Muivah) were questioned about this, they were confident that inner democracy will still prevail. Theoretically, that was what Chairman Mao Zedong would have also said perhaps but a reality exception would be that if Mao Zedong did not like someone’s face, that someone would not stand a chance within the ‘one-party-one government’ system. Sycophancy will become a way of life, a way of survival. The purging of reformist Hu Yaobang and many others is a fact of what a system can do to anyone that falls out of alignment with the opinion of the “Collective Leadership”. Democracy under these circumstances would be a myth at best. Part IV: Article 3: clause (e) defines the political rights of an individual stating that (Quote): “Provided one is not disqualified by law, any one above the age of 18 (eighteen) years has the right to vote and any citizen above the age of 30 (thirty) years has the right to seek election to any office of public trust” (Unquote). It is fine as a rule but what is actually happening in Hong Kong presently in practice, is an application of the same high-sounding definition of individual rights even within the Chinese system. It sounds hollow and practically looks insincere in the face of human ego and power crazed priorities. Part V of the Yezabo is perhaps the most contentious sector concerning the Economic System under section A which broadly states that (Quote): “The economic system of the country shall be national oriented mixed economy, basing in the main on Christian ideals”(Unquote)...so far so good. Now comes Article 1: “All land and forest that may be made mention of by the Government shall be nationalised”; Article 2: “There shall be ceiling to private ownership of land as may be stipulated by the law”; Article 3: “All mineral resources shall be nationalised”; Article 4: “ All the big rivers and natural lakes made mention of by the Government shall be nationalised”; Article 5: Industries: “All major means of production and industries shall be nationalised till such time as deemed necessary”; Article 6: Infrastructure: “All means of distribution, transport and communication shall be nationalised till such time as deemed necessary”; There would be arguments galore on each of the Articles so stipulated but Article 1 and 2 will probably bring out the worst in the Nagas in terms of reaction. I would not presume even for a second that all the village Chiefs/ Clans and individuals having traditional ancestral land holdings would give up their customary rights to the Government without a fight. On the private front, having laboured and slogged the best part of one’s life to acquire landed assets and suddenly be confronted with ceiling on “private ownership of land” duly stipulated by the Government seems more like a bugle being sounded for a civil war. What would all the wealthy giants amongst the Nagas, who have acquired the best of all the commercially viable spaces in Nagaland, say about this if the Government of the day, decide that they would be entitled to 1/2 an acre of land only with the balance being nationalised? Thus far, no one has ever raised a question or an issue on any of these Articles enshrined in the NSCN Yezabo. It gives me the impression that no one seems to have actually read it, or perhaps not even cared to understand its serious import. It is also possible that the whole thing has been taken lightly on the premises that it will never happen. The total silence and indifference for all these years says it all. The important thing is to know that such a Constitution does exist with those wielding AK 47 presumably believing in it seriously. Well, if tomorrow comes and if it becomes the imposed Law of the land, the time for a debate will have run out. It would be prudent therefore that the general acceptance or rejection of it should be debated up front by the people beforehand so that suffocating laws are not coerced upon the people out of the blue. The subject is therefore, being initiated purely as an academic evaluation and public discourse with absolutely no intention of fouling anyone’s day. The views expressed could help the NPGs to revisit the awkward clauses and refine them or take the opportunity to make the people understand its deeper meaning if any. The present contents in the Yezabo give one a strong feeling that Nagas are fighting for sovereignty at the cost of compromising individual freedom. The writer is retired IAS Officer. Forest colony, Kohima