Kaka D. Iralu
The actual heading of the article should have read as: “Challenging the statement that sovereignty is with the people and there can be a Shared Sovereignty between the Naga people and the Indian people. But knowing that such a long title would not be entertained by any Editor, I have stated only half of the desired heading. I will however address both the issues in the present article.
Now, in the context of the GOI/NSCN IM Accord, leaders from both the parties have been saying that sovereignty is with the people. But what do they mean, when they say that “Sovereignty is with the people?
Is sovereignty a physical component (like a liver) that resides in the physical body of “a people” or “the people”? If this is the meaning of “sovereignty,” then the next corollary implication would be that, every time a child is born, a sovereignty is born. It would also mean that sovereignty is at its prime when the child has reached the stage of youth; and sovereignty is on the wane when that youth has become an old man. And finally, sovereignty would be buried, when the old man dies. Now, that would be the case, if sovereignty is with “a people” or “the people.” (By the way, it would also mean that sovereignty is drunk, if the person has consumed too much alcohol and the person’s liver and brain has been affected!) Therefore, in my simple opinion, only an uneducated incredulous person can state that sovereignty is with “a people” or “the people”. What then is the true meaning of sovereignty?
The true sense and meaning of sovereignty can be found only in reference to an independent sovereign constitution and an independent sovereign flag in the context of a POLITICALLY INDEPENDENT NATION. Sovereignty therefore, has meaning and practical reality only with reference to a singular nation. Now, within two sovereign nations, there can be economic relations or joint defense agreements. But sovereignty is not an economic commodity or a defense issue that can be shared by two nations collectively and simultaneously.
Coming to the question of a “Shared Sovereignty” under two constitutions and two flags, no two independent nations can have their own constitution and flags and still share a common sovereignty. In political reality, every independent nation in the world has a unique Constitution and a unique flag of its own. In the case of Nagaland and India, the Naga independent flag is symbolized by the Rainbow and the Indian flag is symbolized by the Asoka Chakra. Concurrent to this political fact, the independent Naga nation has its own constitution called The Yehzabo of Nagaland and independent India also has her own constitution called The Constitution of India. As to its features, the Naga Yehzabo is patterned on the democratic customary laws and traditions of the Naga people. The Indian Constitution on the other hand, is patterned after a western model of democracy. (The Indian constitution is perhaps modeled after a western and European model, because politically, India does not have a tradition of democracy in her history). When the British set their foot on Indian soil in the late 16th century, India was then, comprised of over 500 Princely states. When the British left India in 1947, it was a humble but learned Dalit- Dr Ambedkar- who bequeathed modern India with a western based Constitution.
Finally, to give an example of the impracticality of a so called “Shared Sovereignty”, let us presuppose that under the framework of the present accord, India and Nagaland agrees to have a joint defense force to face any external aggression from across the borders of Nagaland. Let us further imagine that suddenly, Burmese troops attack Naga territories and Nagas find themselves having to fight back. But India because of her economic ties with Burma, insist that Nagas should not fight back. Then what happens? Will the Naga troops and Indian troops stationed in Nagaland fight among themselves then? In such a situation, instead of a shared sovereignty, Nagas will find themselves with two enemies to deal with. Such a situation will also develop, if China attacks Arunachal Pradesh and Indian troops insist on attacking the Chinese troops, while Nagas refuse, on the grounds that Chinese are Mongolians and had earlier helped the Nagas in their fight against India! In such an eventuality, the beautifully worded Shared Sovereignty would explode into war between Nagaland and India again.
In conclusion, to have a Naga flag under the Indian flag or a Naga Constitution under the Indian Constitution is an altogether incongruous proposition. Such an arrangement can never work in practical political reality. In practical political reality, the question of Nagas having a separate flag of their own under the Indian flag is also totally meaningless. (It would still be meaningless, even if, instead of one flag, 16 flags are given for all the 16 tribes of the 16 Point Agreement of the 16 thousand sq. km of the present puppet state of Nagaland under the Constitution of India.) This is because two national flags and two Constitutions of two independent nations can never merge into one nation. Any such attempt would be a mere chasing after a “political chimera”.
