Vaprümu Demo
[dropcap]M[/dropcap]any will not know what LOC or LAC is all about. But we need to know about it because it can have relevance to our not-too-distant future in the state. The term Line of Control (LOC) known as Asia’s Berlin wall refers to the military control line between the Indian Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistani Azad Kashmir- a line which, to this day, does not constitute a legally recognized international boundary but is the de facto border. Originally known as the “Cease-fire Line”, it was re-designated as the “Line of Control” following the Simla Agreement, which was signed on 3 July 1972. Since independence of India and Pakistan, the border has been a site of numerous conflict and wars between each country, and is one of the most complex borders in the world. Another cease-fire line, one that separates the Indian Jammu & Kashmir from the Chinese Aksai Chin, lies further to the east and is known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC). It has been referred to as one of the most dangerous places in the world.It is rather embarrassing but plainly honest; I should but I still don’t know much about my own small beautiful terra firma of Nagaland save the broad knowledge that vast stretch of our lands extend beyond the country to Myanmar in the east and beyond the state to Manipur in the south, Assam in the west and Arunachal Pradesh in the north. How much of this land was then sliced out to form Nagaland State and how much of the land initially claimed was left out thereafter is writ large in the political agreement signed between the Nagas and the GOI in 1963. Just that we don’t talk about it (land outside) anymore. Settlement with people without their land is unquestionably unfinished settlement and therefore any alternative settlement with any group without land settlement at least of, if not beyond the 1963 agreement will only be debasing.
It can also be factually correct, considering the proceeding circumstances, the anticipated settlement will be inter alia, resettlement within the status quo of Nagaland State; resettlement within settlement or a settlement without bringing in an additional inch of land. Unless this postulation is proven otherwise, how can resettlement within 50 years settlement possibly be considered a settlement in any sense? The only word I find appropriate here is ‘rehabilitation’. And rehabilitation and settlement are not the same word; resettlement sounds nearer. Else I can say with certain amount of conviction that it will be a reorganization of the existing boundary in some districts to convert the ultra citizens into bona fide citizens of the state. At least it can appear more pleasing to the eye if the negotiating groups instead of demanding resettlement within the small state of Nagaland boldly demand and accomplish the incomplete land settlement of the 16 Point Agreement and likewise the state government sincerely facilitate the same. That way, their physical settlement in the new land settlement can be fully justified; after all it is their achievement. Anyway that is not coming. Without uncertainty you can take it for granted that the GOI, the GON, some NGOs and the negotiating factions altogether rolled in one will be over-joy to have some settlement within the four walls of Nagaland.
Unfortunately, the state government has bungled the much desired foothill road so much so it has unnecessarily stirred the hornets’ nest of interest and pressure groups with no probable solution in sight. Most attention has been dragged down to the HOW & WHY of the foothill road construction process and subsequent reaction from every nook and corner of the state. Of course gradually and eventually this controversy will subside and the working process will either start one fine day or stop one sad day. But people want, actually need the road so it has to be done one way or the other. But again, WHERE the road is being taken may not be as simple as we see. As mentioned earlier I don’t know much except the little vitals that much of the potentially rich lands in the foothills are encroached by Assam without any reaction from the state. And the state government, NGOs and factions apparently feel that our issue (including land & resources) should be settled with the GOI, not with the neighbouring state(s). The critical point raised here is whether the foothill road is being taken or undertaken only through the un-encroached/undisputed land inside Nagaland or whether the road is also passing through Assam occupied lands and if not, what is the state government contemplating to do thereafter about those encroached lands across the foothill road? The NPCC has cautioned the government not to conduct cadastral survey for the proposed NSDZs till border dispute is settled because such endeavour within Assam occupied lands will be objected nay obstructed and submissively undertaking the same only in un-encroached/undisputed land inside Nagaland will automatically legitimized Assam ownership of those encroached lands. NSDZs or foothill road, it is all the same.
If the state government cannot defend its own recognized village- Dikoi because Assam has claimed it or Ladigarh because of a road construction or Merapani war as a fairy tale, there may be many more, Heaven safe us because the government, the factions and the NGOs cannot. There is no land without people and no people without land and because of that people and land are identified as one. The hostility between Pakistan and India or China and India do not persist because of other reasons but for the land they claim as rightfully theirs. It is worth fighting several wars. Thus LOC, LAC as a deterrent measure- “a line which, to this day, does not constitute a legally recognized international boundary but is the de facto border”. Given the insensitivity and laxity of the state government, for that matter the negotiating factions too over the lands claimed during formation of statehood and lost after statehood, what guarantee do we have that foothill road eventually will not become the de facto border between Assam and Nagaland? Let those who think otherwise convince us that it will not.
The same way ‘man proposes, God disposes’, what the public has proposed, the popularly elected government must dispose. But more importantly, while doing so the government must simultaneously initiate daring initiative to recover all the lost rights and land of the people of the state. If Assam has the force to encroach not once but repeatedly the traditional lands of the Nagas, what is lacking on the part of the popularly elected government to defend its territorial rights or the negotiating factions which until recently talk of Naga sovereignty and then Greater Nagaland to aggressively claim more territorial rights over traditional lands left outside the state of Nagaland instead of limiting the settlement for resettlement within the shrinking state of Nagaland?
