The recent controversy surrounding Dr. S.C. Jamir and his views on the Naga political issue raises a question that goes beyond any individual or organization.
The recent controversy surrounding Dr. S.C. Jamir and his views on the Naga political issue raises a question that goes beyond any individual or organisation: Who has the right to speak about the Naga political question?
Dr. Jamir has recently spoken about the need for an early settlement and has sought to place what he considers the Naga perspective before the RSS leadership and the Government of India. Whatever one’s assessment of his approach or his political views, he has every right to express them. His position can be debated, challenged and scrutinised—but the right to speak itself should not be questioned simply because his views are disagreed with.
Dr. Jamir is a Naga and a veteran public figure who has spent decades in public life. He has served as an elected representative, Chief Minister of Nagaland and Governor. These facts do not make his views automatically correct, nor do they give him a mandate to speak on behalf of every Naga. But neither does disagreement with his position take away his right to participate in a public discussion concerning his people and his homeland.
There is an important distinction between the right to speak and the right to speak for everyone.
Dr. Jamir may express his views as an individual Naga and as a former public leader. Others are equally entitled to disagree with him, challenge his interpretation of history, question his political positions and present a different understanding of the Naga political issue. That is precisely how a democratic and open political discourse should function.
The Naga political question is far too important to be reduced to a contest over who possesses the exclusive authority to speak. No organisation, political party, underground group, civil society body or individual should be treated as having a monopoly over the Naga voice.
If Dr. Jamir’s arguments are considered wrong, let them be answered with facts, historical records, constitutional arguments and reasoned political debate. If his interpretation of events is disputed, let those disagreements be placed before the public. If his approach is considered inadequate, let an alternative approach be articulated.
But telling a Naga that he has no right to speak about the Naga political issue is a different matter altogether.
The Naga political question belongs to the people. It is not the private property of any organisation or individual. Its history is complex, its interpretations are contested, and its future concerns generations yet to come. That is precisely why the space for discussion must remain open.
We may disagree profoundly on history, politics, agreements, representation and the way forward. Such disagreements are inevitable. What should not become inevitable is the attempt to silence a fellow Naga by questioning his right to speak.
Dr. Jamir’s views need not be accepted merely because he is a veteran leader. They should stand or fall on the strength of the arguments he puts forward. The same principle should apply to every other voice in the Naga political discourse.
A Naga does not need permission to speak about Nagaland.
Respect the debate. Challenge the arguments. Correct the history where necessary. Present a different vision where you disagree.
But do not silence the voice.
Along K Ao