Observing through the prism of the latest political steps of the world’s major powerful nations, it is evident that the world is heavily gravitating towards realism.
In January 2017, America withdrew from the multinational trade agreement, Trans-Pacific Partnership, ending an era of multinational trade partnership. In December 2017, President Trump formally announced the United States recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel in a rare move which set in reverse the nearly seven decades of American foreign policy. Sensing impending economic as well as political threat from her association with the European Union, the United Kingdom in a 2016 referendum voted to leave the bloc. Closely following the move is Russia who quitted the International Criminal Court in 2016 to fend itself from prosecution for its annexation, some analysts argued, of Ukraine’s Crimea. In the eastern hemisphere of the globe, China had rejected the UN-backed international tribunal on South China Sea which ruled that China had no legal basis for claiming much of South China Sea. On February 10, 2018, India dropped the call for a “united Palestine” marking a radical change in India’s position that she maintained for several decades. These moves were hailed as recognition and acceptance of the gorund reality.
All previous India’s relationship with west Asia primarily followed hyphenated foreign policy (Israel-Palestine without separating the two) until Narendra Modi became the first prime minister to visit Israel on standalone basis in June 2017. His visit heralded the birth of a new India’s policy on west Asia which strategists termed it as “de-hyphenated” foreign policy. De-hyphenated foreign policy is a policy referring to the establishment of a relationship with a country on standalone basis, without weighing the degree of relationships a country establish with other countries.
In his latest visit to the state of Palestine on February 10, 2018, Modi defended the cause of the Palestinians and reached out his hope for early “sovereign, independent Palestine” to the Palestinians in Ramallah, omitting the words “united” and “viable” from the phrase “...sovereign, independent, united and viable Palestine, co-existing peacefully with Israel” he said to the visiting Palestinian president in May 2017. Omission of the word “united” was acknowledged as an acceptance of “new ground realities” and the “facts on the ground” while realigning India’s positions.
Back at home, New Delhi continue to apply the conventional hyphenated policy in tackling the Naga problem. The Naga problem was dragged on for about a century as a result of the fall-outs of various talks between the two entities. The inability of the two entities to find an amicable settlement to the vexed political problem gives rise to two hypothetical inferences. The first inference is that the Government of India is indicted for being not dedicated enough to amicably settle the seven decades-old Indo-Naga problem. Record, in this case, may be laid that the GoI in tune with the demanding time had categorically realigned its foreign policy in dealing with the problematic Middle East by serving double interests – (a) living up to the expectation of the region’s people, especially by de-hyphenating Israel from Palestine in an implicit endorsement to two-state solution and (b) mustering the goodwill of the region’s nations without upsetting the countries it had established relationship with. Had GoI been squarely committed to settle Naga problem, it would have reoriented its approach by accommodating the expectations of our people and by conceding to the fact that a two-state solution would not stand in the way of a peaceful neighbourly existence.
The second inference is that the negotiators representing the Nagas are collaterally accused of compromising the right of the Nagas to be “absolutely sovereign” and “completely independent”. Having successfully engineered factionalism, the negotiators fight not for a united sovereign state yet politicised the issue along the parochial factional ideologies. This approach is partially responsible for perpetuating the hyphenated policy instead of arriving at a deal to delink (de-hyphenate) India and Naga-Land.
A question strikes hard on recollection of the Modi government approving the right of Palestine as a sovereign state in such a time when our negotiators believes that only “shared” sovereignty is the lone alternative for us. Aren’t Nagas deserved to be sovereign and independent whose geographical extent is comparatively larger than the state of Palestine or Israel and whose period of conflict predates Israel-Palestine conflict? In our fight for liberation stemming from our historical rights, what has blinded our sight that we are about to end up negotiating for a “shared” sovereignty?
Framing a new outline by the Modi government possess a potential to reignite a spark in the un-eased Indo-Naga relationship in line with the trendsetting foreign policy of the present dispensation in de-hyphenating Israel from Palestine and deemed the erstwhile “united” as two separate entities. The solution to the problem is as simple as recognising the right of the Nagas to be sovereign and independent on historical basis; drop the word “united” (acknowledge India and Naga-Land as two separate entities) by accepting the “new ground realities” and “facts on the ground”; and de-hyphenate (separate) India from Naga-Land as the two cannot live together in the long run just as Israel and Palestine cannot live together in a forced union.
The world’s major powers took steps closer to realism to give their economies a needed push. So also, believing that a policy-thrust would bring about economic dividends in the India-Palestine relationship and as this belief underlies the current policy-shift at New Delhi, the same may find relevant and applicable to a friendly neighbour in the form of a free Naga nation than a troubled Nagaland in a forced union. Modi’s bold move towards this reality will reverse the present trend of siphoning of funds sanctioned by the GoI by various elements in the state to being a friendly economic and trade-partner which is a win-win solution for both. A friendly and free Naga-Land in the extreme east of India will propel India’s Act East as she Look West in search of partnerships and power.
