In recent years, in an endeavor to find political settlement with the Government of India (GoI), the question of people’s mandate has become the topic of hot debate among Nagas. In the wake of such political situation, it is pertinent to understand the position of the Nagas vis-à-vis Nagaland’s sovereign status as declared on August 14, 1947 and mandated by a national Plebiscite on May 16, 1951.
Expectedly, irrespective of divisions circumstantially or otherwise, all Naga political groups (NPGs) vouched on the mandate of Plebiscite 1951 wherein, 99.9% of eligible Naga electorates (18 years and above) voted for separate independence of Nagaland. Meanwhile, NSCN (IM) claimed that as the only authentic political organization representing the Nagas after the infamous Shillong Accord, it received people’s mandate in 2005 when all the Naga Civil Society representatives, including GBs and Village Council leaders in a consultative meeting at Hebron Camp gave their signatures of approval to negotiate with the GoI on behalf of the Nagas. However, there are other NPGs, NNCs to be precise, that stand on the mandate of Plebiscite 1951 only. There is argument on this claim and counter-claim. This write up is a humble exercise to evoke intellectual minds of experts to come out with finer details to clear the doubt and confusion on the definition and application of the word ‘mandate’ as universally accepted and also reflect on its applicability in Naga situation.
According to Wikipedia sources, ‘mandate’ came from Latin word ‘mandatum’ (meaning, ‘something commanded), a word formed out of mandare, from manus ‘hand’ + dare ‘give’. ‘Mandare’ was influenced by French mandat that finally morphed into ‘mandate’ and accepted as English word in the 16th century.
From the original Latin definition of the word ‘mandare’, it was very clear that people’s mandate was decided by giving (raising) a hand that formed the traditional voting method before the advent of ballot system. Mandate is defined as an official order or commission given to people’s representative to do something. The process of commissioning was by ‘direct vote’ of all eligible electorates. This also clears the doubt that consultative/representative mandate in the form of collective signatures by leaders representing the people/organization, in strict sense, is not people’s mandate because it did not entail ‘direct votin’ by the electorates. Such exercise rather fits into the definition of ‘endorsement’. In short, people’s mandate can be obtained only by ‘direct voting’ of eligible electorates and not by representative signatures.
The system of direct voting by electorates to give/decide people’s mandate is usually by election, referendum or plebiscite. Election; a tenure based constitutional process comes after regular intervals that varies from country to country. By this, people elect their representative lawmakers to the house of the people. Referendum and plebiscite are two other mechanisms adopted to give/get people’s mandate. The two words have been randomly used, synonymously/interchangeably, but they differ in origin and meaning of words as well as application.
According to Wikipedia sources, referendum in Latin means “anything that is brought back”; whereas, plebiscite; derived from Latin word plebiscitum, means “a decree or resolution of the people” (plebs - the common masses, scitum - decree).
The institution of referendum can be sub-divided into two categories: constitutionally regulated referendum and a policy vote (or a plebiscite). The former deals with constitutional amendments, laws, or bills. A plebiscite can be an ad hoc referendum, for which there are no provisions in the constitution (or in regular legislation). It might also deal with things other than a law or bill in the Parliament. In this sense, it is nothing but a ‘vote of confidence’ on the policies of the government of the head of a state. (A glaring example is the recent Brexit referendum, which voted out David Cameron as the Prime Minister of United Kingdom). Referendum refers to a procedure where an issue is presented to the people for their verdict. This may take place before or after a decision is taken by the legislature but that can be enforced only when the people have their verdict - a provision that is often applicable to constitutional amendment. Plebiscite obtains direct popular vote on a matter of importance, but chiefly, in order to create some more or less permanent political condition. It may be for a new political set up, implying change in sovereignty. Many small countries that became free after the World War I used plebiscite to choose the form of their political system.
Plebiscite is one time affair when people express their option while referendum is a mechanism that is in operation continuously. Referendum is what the vote is about; plebiscite is actually the vote itself. Referendum is normally held in a democratic environment; plebiscite is usually held in an undemocratic environment and the result may be ignored altogether. Initiation of a referendum may not always involve those in power. It can be initiated by the citizens (citizen-initiated referendums). A plebiscite can be initiated only by the representative authorities.
An independence referendum is a type of referendum in which the citizens of a territory decide whether the territory should become an independent sovereign state. An independence referendum that results in a vote for independence does not always ultimately result in independence. (Naga independence is a perfect example. There are people who believe in utopian idea and mislead innocent villagers that Nagaland is already an independent State by virtue of August 1947 declaration and Plebiscite mandate of 1951. These people think Nagas had done what needed should be done politically, and simply waiting for UN’s intervention. It is ridiculous belief because only a declaration was made and a mandate given to that effect, while, independence in reality is yet to be a reality because no sovereign nation or UN had recognized the sovereignty of Nagaland until now. Let there be no confusion that UN membership/recognition is not an absolute pre-requisite to be sovereign. There are sovereign nations not member of/recognize by UN but recognized by one or other sovereign nation/s). Independence referendum can be held without the consent of governments, but their results are usually ignored by the international community. Non-recognition is often a result of conflicts with other countries that claim those entities as integral parts of their territory. In other cases, two or more partially recognized entities may claim the same territorial area, with each of them de facto in control of a portion of it (as has been the condition of Nagas in India and Myanmar).
It is clear from the explanations above that Nagas had conducted one plebiscite in 1951 for all times to come (a one-time affair). 99.9% of the electorates of that time had given their verdict for complete independence. It became a historic milestone of our political right and course. There had been no other plebiscite when the electorates had the opportunity for direct voting. Therefore, the only mandate Nagas can claim is the mandate of Plebiscite 1951. Naga National Council (NNC), as the only political institution of the Nagas that time was the sole author of that plebiscite. Therefore, it is self-destructive to condemn the author and at the same time, claim the content (mandate). This is because NNC does not belong to the custodians of Plebiscite document only.
The call for fresh mandate is impractical giving the changed geo-political scenario. There is problem of territorial question. Even if referendum is called only within the present political arrangement of Nagaland State, the constitution of India does not have provision for referendum. This was revealed by constitutional experts in the case of Aam Admi Party’s attempt to conduct referendum on Delhi’s full statehood status. Therefore, it is best for Nagas to steadfastly upheld 1951 Plebiscite mandate. Trying to re-write history will cost Nagas dearly. People who had no part in 1951 plebiscite may attempt such thing but it will be inconsequential because the two (Plebiscite 1951 and fresh referendum) will have no connection whatsoever. It is best to ignore such impractical idea. The August 1947 declaration gave birth to sovereignty but it is 1951 plebiscite that continuously supply oxygen to it and keeps the spirit of Naga sovereignty alive. None should try to take off the lifeline.
Nagas must stand on truth. The truth is the mandate of 1951 Plebiscite. In doctrinaire politics, even falsehood can become truth and vice versa, by intensive indoctrination and political propaganda but ultimately it is the truth that will prevail. Plebiscite 1951 mandate is the basis for ‘final political settlement’ (relationship between sovereign Nagaland and sovereign India), which no party can afford to overlook or side step. Any solution outside this mandate will fall short of ‘finality’ because people’s mandate was for sovereignty in its entirety separately and not for one or other of its variants within another sovereignty. (In fact, sovereignty is absolute and has no variant). Mandate reflects trust. No power can claim people’s mandate by distrusting the electorates. Obviously, endorsement for ‘transitional solution’ and mandate for final settlement have no parallel interpretations. Let, none misinterpret ‘mandate’ to deceive the people.
