Nukhosa Chüzho
A functionary of an NSCN (IM) was once commented on the model of European Union and existing financial institutions as a justification for possible solution to the vexed Naga political problem. Though he did not further explain the technicalities to be involved in carving out a ‘state’ either within or outside India, what is simply clear by his statement is his (group’s) emphasis on a Union with India with possible common monetary unit, access to single market, abolishing of border checks or borderless travels as was the case with the 28 EU member states and 19 Eurozone nations.
The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 introduced a continent’s economic-political union of what is presently known as European Union which has adapted from the erstwhile European Economic Community (EEC) floated in 1958. In addition to financial cooperation was the contentious borderless Schengen area as envisaged in the Schengen Agreement signed in 1985 which many Eurosceptics viewed closer relationship as a move towards creation of a “United Sates of Europe”.
Britain made a maiden entry into the Union in 1973 (then EEC) which also laid the basis for debate between the ‘Brexit’ and ‘Bremain’. A temporal relief was achieved in 1975 when Britain voted to stay within the EEC. However, the question is echoing back with the next referendum on Britain’s future in EU slated to be held on June 23. It is, therefore, pertinent to examine as to why Britain and off late Greek sought to be free from the Union which, for outsiders, appeared to be in a perfect matrimony.
The supporters of the Brexit (Britain’s exit from the European Union), firstly, believe Britain is being held back by the EU, which they say “imposes too many rules on business and charges billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return”. They argued that Britain is not getting its due opportunities and hence breaking away from the Union would trigger an open economy that continued to trade with the EU and all around the world free from EU’s regulations.
The second contentious point is the borderless regime across the EU member states as was agreed in the Schengen Agreement. It abolished border checks while ensuring a visa-less free movement within the Schengen area where each member states of the EU are obligated to abide by. Borderless free movement to have full access to a single market as its core ideal has, besides economic factor, both political and social ramifications. Increase in immigration population has destabilized the country’s social structure while escalating political divisions. They are also accused of seizing employment opportunities at the expense of the natives. As long as Britain remains within EU, it is powerless to check the influx of immigrants.
The third controversial theme is on the issue of sovereignty. The Eurosceptics viewed excessive bureaucratic and judicial interference from regulating work timing to bankers’ bonuses as an intrusion into a country’s internal affairs. Under such an institutional framework, the Brexiters reasoned that it deprived U.K of its independent growth with a right to craft its own future.
Regional blocs modeled in line with EU are cropping up including Mercosur in Latin America and ASEAN in Southeast Asia. A conceivable union between India and Naga-Land (encompassing all Naga-inhabited areas of India and Myanmar) in the format of prevalent regional blocs presents the Naga issue in a more complex situation. For that reason, the issue requires each stakeholder for in-depth word for word public discourse on the ‘framework agreement’ in an open platform. The NSCN (IM) tried to dispel a popular believe that the said agreement is just a framework, yet the group must also remember that there cannot be any framework without some fundamentals that atomically forge a structure.
In letter, the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 still legally enforce in Nagaland. However, the said regulation is frequently rendered toothless on the pretext of development and for temporal monetary gains. With a EU-type (or current global financial cooperations) solution, there would necessarily be a free trade zone, opening of interior resource-rich region to external investment companies and a predictable inflow of both legal and illegal migrants as part of shared-economic interest. With a geographical area of only 16,579 Sq/Km, Nagaland is still struggling to effectively arrest influx of outsiders from flooding its urban areas. In the event of any solution based on NSCN (IM)’s logic, a less rigid border regulation and opening of markets (sans a full-fledged sovereignty) would compromise our nation’s security, social structure and invite further political divisions.
Tagged as globalization, many developing countries are slowly getting entangled in neo-imperialist designs intelligently masqueraded in leading global financial institutions. The World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), dominated by the West, have mandatorily asked the member countries to align to its structural adjustment policy to meet the conditions of the West while underestimating member countries’ indigenous economic development. As such, it is relevant to speculate that a financial regulator is fundamental in case of any agreement between the parties involved. This situation would offer a perfect time for New Delhi to remote-control Naga-Land’s vast above-surface and below-surface resources, not forgetting dictating us with institutional regulations. NSCN (IM)’s functionaries must do a research on recent establishments of China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and BRICS’ New Development Bank (NDB) whose stated purpose is to challenge the western rigid domination over global financial affairs despite claims of liberalization.
Monetary union of the Eurozone has both been a boom and a bane for the eurozone countries. It has a tendency of having nearly-toppled one of the world’s oldest civilisation and a developed nation, Greece, by destabilizing its once flourishing economy backed by a strong independent currency. Eurozone members including Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Cyprus are tagged struggling economy while uncertainty hovering their euro future. The logic assumes vital here as even the matured independent countries are being pressurized in such a monetary union, the case of Naga-Land being a nascent nation envisioning a possible monetary union could prove a nemesis for its own downfall.
Britain, a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council and a nuclear armed nation, feels insecure that its sovereignty is being invaded. Most of the Brexiters subscribed to a view that EU needs Britain more than Britain needs EU. This is to be understood from the angles of Britain lending its heavy weight in geopolitical game involving EU’s helping hand in negotiating the landmark nuclear deal with Iran and working closely with Washington and Moscow on issues that confront the two nations. From this point, many believe that Britain would be better alone (though an equal number also believes that EU would be weakened). Despite enjoying such a stature in international affairs, Britain sensed that its sovereignty is threatened. A nation which is yet to take off its economic development marked by its weak political stance and poor military infrastructure, Naga-Land has very little values for India to hold us in high regard. Hence, settlement in the type of shared sovereignty could pave a right military platform for India to trample on us further.
What now confronts us is why professionals including Italian doctors, Bulgarian builders and French bankers in Britain are insecured of their jobs in case of Brexit being taken place on June 23. In the same trajectory, if there take place a Nexit (exit of Naga-Land from Indian Union), there would be an exodus of migrant labors, unchaining the dominance of business by non-locals, large scale vacation of jobs from both government and private establishments and a complete overhauling of our social structure. This would necessarily open new avenues for our youths whose unemployment rate is skyrocketing to an unmanageable figure.
Despite its claim of being the fastest growing economy with growth rate hovering around 7.6 to 7.9 per cent, India is still home to more than 50 per cent of the malnourished children in the world. Close to 80 crore farmers and related people or 54 per cent of the population is still living in atrocious conditions with 42 per cent of farming community is debt-ridden. Out of the world’s estimated 45.8 million slaves, 18 million - 40 per cent - are in India, and what is more astounding is all type of slavery exists in India. Its sprawling cities are figured in world’s most polluted cities while its industrial development agenda is at loggerheads with green and civil right activists, with a little more intolerance in de-registering NGOs who differed with the government on principle and a considerable inclination towards cultural integration. India has its own problems to look after. Policy of appeasement may prove futile as we cannot expect India to indefinitely write-off our annual affair of accumulated fiscal deficit. We should draw a lesson from Britain whose marriage with EU for four decades has been politically dividing their great empire.
