Out of sheer academic interest, I volunteered to participate in the analysis of the ongoing hazy conclusion of the dialogue between NSCN(IM) and GOI. I am made to understand by 3.8.2015 Accord called
‘Framework’ signed between NSCN(IM) and R.N. Ravi, Interlocutor to be preliminary accord pledged to have agreement. Hence, what matters is the agreement on what conditions. As for me, I do not know any of the
conditions of the agreement except that what were published in local media. Mainly two issues are spilled for the purpose of speculation and private debate.The first is Naga Integration: NSCN(IM) leader Th. Muivah declared that ‘Without integration, there will be no solution’ quoting from his address on 14.8.2015 at Hebron as published by Nagaland Page dated 15.8.2015. Instantly, RN Ravi rebutted the claim of Muivah saying ‘Integration, theoretically yes but practically no….’ –Nagaland Post dated 28.8.2015. This matter is left at that without further reaction from NSCN(IM).
It is common sense that Integration is a very contentious subject for both the parties of the negotiation when the genuine term of Integration is to be implemented as it tickles neighbour States of Nagaland. Hopefully, what NSCN(IM) means by Integration is holistic amalgamation of all contiguous Naga areas in India and not such arrangement by which an area within Nagaland is curved out for the exclusive inhabitation of NSCN(IM) faction branding it to be integration.
The second is sovereignty: According to Webster Dictionary, sovereignty means free, independent and in no way limited by external authority or influence. According to Cambridge Dictionary, sovereign is the power of a country to control its own government. These being the interpretations of the word sovereignty, there cannot be an overlapping sovereignty nor can there be two parallel sovereign powers under a constitution. Nagas can be called sovereign only when we secede from the Union of India, get recognition from other sovereign
countries as a nation, have our exclusive constitution for ourselves and a government of our own. Yet, so long we survive and have our being within the cocoon of Indian constitution, we are never sovereign.
Time and again, I came across NSCN(IM) talking about the sovereignty expected out of the agreement will be ‘shared sovereignty’. It implies that as and when an agreement is reached between NSCN(IM) and GOI,
Nagas will share the sovereignty of India as understood by me. If what I discerned of the implication is correct, I do not expect a difference from what we have been in few North East States enjoying the status of statehood under the Constitution of India. Nagaland has been enjoying certain amount of autonomous ingredients under Art 371(A) since 1963 till date, as we all know, Nagaland has been sharing India’s sovereignty for more than half a century.
In the light of above, and in the interest of peaceful transaction of business, I sincerely feel that camouflaged statements and deceptive interpretations be better avoided at this juncture so as to pave way
for positive response. Transparency will acceptable and honesty will be honourable.
Z. Lohe
