Vaprumu Demo
TRUTH becomes poison where there is widespread hypocrisy and deceit and the ones who speak or expect truth are considered a threat to such environment. Changed Naga situation is very near to this depiction and despite knowing fully by conscious and concerned people alike that bitter truth could very well be the only healing course to the critical Naga problem, not everyone dares to subscribe it. Refusal to administer truth at this crucial stage is becoming reactionary as there is rising suspicion of a high level conspiracy to rewrite Naga case. I maybe wrong but how can you blame, say a blind man from describing the features of elephant in the way he feels about it?
Scaling down from high slope of sovereignty outside India to low ground of negotiation for some hazy shared sovereign power within Indian Constitution, the highly rated Framework Agreement is unlikely to bring permanent or final settlement. An exclusive settlement maybe regarded honourable by one or two sections but dishonourable or unacceptable by the other sections. Of course possibility of imposition with intimidation upon other Nagas in the like of “take it or face consequence” Shillong Accord cannot be ruled out. Whether Framework Agreement and Shillong Accord can be comparable or not is yet to be known. Even then present settlement can also become a poor repetition of past experiences at best or resurgence of unparalleled conflict at worst. Otherwise real agreement is made between two equals having different interests and negotiation is the process of mutually solving those differences whereas bargain (commonly understood) is something which is bought or put on sale at low price and which you still think is of good value. Which one exactly are we in?
Who does not know that Naga sovereignty & integration are no longer issue in the changed situation and that “soft bargain” within constitutional permissibility or flexibility is in process for consideration. But for that matter, apart from what one journalist, Bharat Bhushan had reported, who knows for sure the actual contents of the agreement or bargaining points? The PWC, MLAs and some civil bodies? It is no longer a simple matter of inquisitiveness; it is now a compelling matter of great concern and reactionary as to why the negotiating parties, precisely the NSCN (M now) is unwilling to divulge the truth to the stakeholders UNLESS, I repeat unless they are stealthily venturing to a very fragile area to eventually knock down the status quo of the state or statehood. This must be; if this is not so why hide what they say is historic, honourable?
Considering the premise of negotiation terms not to leak out anything beyond the soundproof four walls and not to involve dissimilar groups till the settlement is made enforceable, one is inclined to surmise that this settlement is also designed to become another “un-spelled settlement” to settle old score- to finish off Naga sovereignty from within, empowering a new “un-sovereignty group” to finish “sovereignty groups”. Their exclusiveness is explicit, their hush-hush speaks louder and the contradiction of claim and disclaim is proof enough that something valued is going to be sacrificed. Good gracious me! The music of ‘Modi’s historic accord’ is played on and the Disturbed Area Act is brought to dance. How the heck can “people-in-struggle” trust split-tongue GOI and tongue-tight NSCN (M) that honourable or historic settlement needs come through closed-group negotiation, closed-door meetings, closed-lip demands, simultaneously with AFSPA, DAA?
Pre 3rd August 2015 situation was characterized by indeterminate negotiation but Post 3rd August situation is differently placed with Framework Agreement in hand. What was then not known or made known during the first phase can no longer be alibi to what should NOW be made known to the stakeholders and say shareholders following public declaration of the Framework Agreement on 3rd August 2015. Like it or not, in this negotiation business the state government and self-proclaimed apex civil bodies have become biggest shareholders and on whose “we don’t care what” support the NSCN (M) had stage-managed Naga Mandate. At the background are the uninformed stakeholders whose voice is unheard in the corridor of negotiators and whose vulnerable position is totally misrepresented by “we don’t know what” elected government and “we don’t need to know what” civil bodies. Honestly, can you believe that popularly elected government and so-called apex civil bodies/hohos are not even concerned or worried as to what kind of settlement the NSCN (M) and GOI are bringing that may drastically affect Nagaland State?
Logic of support given to the unknown is simple. Political parties that come to power with faction support stay glued with that faction politics and so long as they keep the latter in good humour by facilitating even what is clearly unconstitutional, the electoral victory is guaranteed, government accountability is zipped and electorates are kept at bay. And what suits the government the civil bodies follow suit, after all there is hardly any NGO in Nagaland; most are GOs (governmental organizations). Then there are mass of hesitant people who sense things are not alright anymore but their pulse is not felt, they grumble but cannot complain, they protest but cannot fix responsibility because they too want to stay safe and for reason like this most do not take anybody seriously. The targeted few who dare subscribe the bitter truth as a panacea to the critical problem in ICU are readily branded as mentally ill balanced or nonconformist or anti-national. Yet for truth said and acknowledged, there is no regret. And unless truth is spoken out in time, what can truth-withheld solve after unwanted situation is created?
What, if this is it?
1. If settlement is designed for Nagas inhabiting outside Nagaland State we have no objection to any arrangement or rearrangement in their respective home state and they have our unflinching support for their rightful position. But if, in any manner the settlement will infringe upon the 54 years Statehood of Nagaland, then ACTUAL OPINION of stakeholders and not MANUFACTURED OPINION of shareholders must be taken into account before finalising the settlement.
2. If assertion of BJP Leader Nirmala Sitharaman and Interlocutor RN Ravi are true that elected members are well conversant with the content of Framework Agreement they are then no longer facilitator but a party to the settlement. Whether this is true or false they must clear their present position because in the Post 3rd August situation “we still don’t know what but we still support” is not tenable anymore. Either they emerge as new party to the settlement as implied or as people’s elected representatives they endorse the position of the stakeholders to put Nagas of Nagaland FIRST and protect the status quo of the 54 years statehood.
3. If state govt insist to cling to outdated position of facilitator for reason of survival, if the supporting civil bodies & hohos do not care the potential boomerang effect of this settlement and if NSCN (M) and GOI are determined to make Nagaland a dummy state to display Framework Agreement as settlement of Naga issue, then Nagas of Nagaland State must react to the situation in time. How exactly restructuring, delimiting, rehabilitating whatever, within Nagaland State can bring any good worth calling settlement of Naga issue, is precisely the pressing concern of the stakeholders, actually the misrepresented people of the State. And actual stakeholders have legitimate right to know and get heard.
4. If there be any counterclaim that opinion of stakeholders is not unheard or not misrepresented, then let there be referendum in the State democratically conducted by a competent state-based organization like NTC to establish whether the stakeholders will be agreeable to remaking Nagaland State as the object of settlement.
5. If likeminded stakeholders share similar opinion, remain silent no more. Speak out in time; else the price of silence can become too heavy to bear.
If Nagaland State is NOT the object of settlement kindly consider my view as a subject of academic interest.
