Blowin’ in the wind Rebel leaders with the flag of Nagaland
Photo: Benjamin Sugathan
FOR 64 YEARS, the Naga struggle for sovereignty has been based on the idea of ‘urra uvie (our land belongs to us)’. Over the years, a sense of a collective Naga identity has been instilled and the idea of sovereignty based on their historical rights and cultural identity has become real. Warring factions created a sovereignty hyperbole, something akin to the idea of Kashmir’s azadi, where the fight for independence was about “all or nothing” and the cause that justified the violence was sovereignty. However, at the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) meeting on 29 February in Dimapur, Nagaland, addressing thousands of Nagas from all walks of life and all Naga-inhabited areas (Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland and Myanmar), National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Kitovi-Khole) Chairman Gen Khole Konyak explained that independence for Nagas in the present international context was not possible nor was Greater Nagaland. “It is a practical reality, necessitated not because of the aggressive posture of the Government of India but a realisation that Naga nationalism must be evoked in the right spirit through practical wisdom as opposed to idealist views on sovereignty and independence,” he said.
A statement that, for the first time,
touched on the issue of sovereignty in a public forum and gave an
inkling of what the future might hold.
“Sovereignty, or the denial of it, has been a
bone of contention between the Nagas and the Government of India since
1947,” says Father Abraham Lotha, a Naga intellectual. But what has
resulted in this changing definition? A change that is being seen as a
progressive and positive step.
Over the past six decades, there has been a
paradigm shift and the idea of globalisation and inter-dependence has
taken root not only in India but among the Nagas as well. Exposed to the
idea of a global village, young Nagas aped the hairstyles of their
favourite Korean movie stars and political stands of the ‘underground’
softened. Sovereignty underwent an adjustment.
“How we defined sovereignty
50 years ago does not fit into today’s context,” explains a Naga rebel.
“Both sovereignty and self-determination are still key, but we will
adjust our demands to the needs of a modern world.”
‘Shared sovereignty’ is the new catch-phrase
in Nagaland, says Father Lotha. “We aren’t very sure what ‘shared
sovereignty’ means. We don’t know what we will give to India and what
India will give us. But what we do know is that no country is sovereign
in the old understanding of the word; we are all inter-dependent.”
Another contributing factor was the military
stalemate. As the decades passed, the death toll mounted. The Indian
government’s military response to a political problem created a
deadlock. While it contained the ‘insurgency’, sporadic violence
continued. “The harsh and sad reality of India is that for every soldier
killed, there are a hundred waiting to take his place,” explains a
senior army officer. “Yes, you can create an irritant, but you cannot
win in a battle of attrition.”
The implication of this mindset is that
violence cannot provide any solution. Whether it is in Kashmir or the
Northeast, the Centre has shown its willingness to take on losses and
bide its time for an opportune moment.
|
But the protracted violence in Nagaland and
other parts of the Northeast has created ‘conflict fatigue’. The local
population — the support base of the movements — has grown wary of the
violence, extortion, lack of normalcy and development. They are stuck
between the cause: sovereignty, which is close to their heart, and the
reality, which falls horribly short of what was promised.
“The demand for complete sovereignty has
vanished from the younger generation and the Naga intellectuals,” says
businessman Zakie, 28. “Complete sovereignty is neither possible nor
will it be to our advantage. Though there is a sense of optimism after
the recent FNR meeting, many people are jaded. We have heard these
promises before.”
Former Union Home Secretary GK Pillai
believes that, “When the Naga groups came to the negotiation table, the
understanding was that sovereignty is something that the Indian
government cannot give. However, the negotiation must result in a
win-win situation, an honourable solution. The first step is for the
Naga groups to go back to the people and explain to them, we were
fighting for X, but we are getting Y, which is an honourable solution
and in the best interest of both parties. They need to get the people to
support the agreement. Then we will have a lasting solution.”
A young member of the Naga underground very
candidly expresses, “This political struggle has been on for many years
now, but there is a growing feeling that if we don’t do something now
and seize the moment, it will not be wise on our part. We will talk to
the people, understand what they want and then go ahead with the
negotiations.”
The FNR meeting, in which four resolutions
were passed and a desire expressed to create a common platform, is being
seen as the ‘first step’. Though there are still hurdles, the
progressive approach provides hope that the contours of a lasting peace
could be seen by the end of this year.
KASHMIR TOO has reached a military stalemate and life in the Valley is anything but normal. Azadi is
the war cry and various separatist leaders rally around the cause to
assert their dominance. Does the Naga movement hold a lesson for India’s
other longstanding dispute?
Pillai feels that though the Pakistan factor
makes Kashmir a different ballgame, “the idea of globalisation, soft
borders and being exposed to what is happening in Pakistan has resulted
in a shift”. “Pakistan is no longer an option; the options are azadi and India. This shift has taken 50 years. You have to give it time,” he says.
The longer the movement lasts, the graver
the consequences are for the local populace. So, is a shift in mindset
required from both sides?
Dilip Padgaonkar, one of the interlocutors
sent to Kashmir last year, believes that the solution lies within the
idea of India itself. “In the Valley, sovereignty is co-equal to a
‘State’. When that is the understanding, in a region where people feel
oppressed, the demand for sovereignty comes up. Realpolitik or armed
conflict is a nonstarter. The idea of India allows for people to follow
their political aspirations. We have seen that the Constitution of India
has proven to be very flexible and allowed space for this kind of
aspiration. The most recent example of this space is the creation of
Gorkhaland, a purely constitutional solution to people’s aspirations.”
Hurriyat (G) leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s
visit to New Delhi and interactions with different civil society members
are being seen as a softening of his otherwise hardline stand. Could
this be a step in a new direction?
Over the years, there has been one constant,
the Indian government will not give complete sovereignty. This is the
stark reality facing the rebel outfits: Is prolonged conflict in pursuit
of an outdated idea of sovereignty worth it, especially when New Delhi
is comfortable with protracted deployment? Maybe there is a lesson to be
learnt from the Naga rebel outfits — to stay relevant, you must evolve.
At the end of the day, the groups have to realise that in a people’s movement, the mandate is in the hands of the people.
Avalok Langer is a Correspondent with Tehelka. avalok@tehelka.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment