As the Nagas wait for an impending final settlement to the Naga political issue there still looms a great volume of uncertainty in the minds of the people due to the division of the people into different camps, whether in opinion or through active support. So initially, while there was enthusiasm shown by some there a very few who openly criticised. However there was abject silence by many who dared not to say anything as the culture of violence was quite prevalent.
A semblance of peace came about after the signing of the ceasefire agreements starting from 1997 with the different Naga political groups, except for the sporadic factional fights. Even then there were only a selected few who had took the risk to voice their opinions whether for or against the peace talks. It was the peace efforts by various organisations, the most notable being FNR, among the different armed Naga political groups and factions that made possible the current conducive atmosphere where one can now openly voice one’s opinion in public without fear. Then it slowly became more apparent of the differing views and opinions of the Naga public. The views differed according to ones allegiances to groups, village, tribes, the administrative zones of one’s place of residence etc.
Although the naysayers were silenced for some time after the signing of the Framework Agreement between the GoI and the NSCN(IM) in Aug 2017, it only resulted in more groups with different opinions. Some cases are nothing but pure cases of sour grapes but at the same time there were also voices of genuine concern whether based on one’s insecurities or logic. In the last 20 years the base of the different narratives applied for the public debates went further back in history, chronologically reverse from 1997 to 1929. Some incorrectly also tried and still try to equate pass events and agreements with the present even though the contents of present agreement is yet to be declared. There are genuine concerns for similarity of the situation but the content cannot be same, that’s a truism that needs to be accepted. When it should have been the endeavour of all to overcome the danger of the similarity of the situation by the content itself, it is unfortunate that leaders on all sides were are unable to see the difference for so long.
An academic who follow Naga history would out rightly reject many of the fallacies circulating in public domain but the Naga public is yet to reach that societal development where a criticism can be criticised, especially if the first criticism is against an establishment. The initial criticism itself is done only after thorough examination so as not to hurt any group read tribe and packaged in such a way that it is for the common good. So why would anybody criticise such a person? At present it only happens among the different political parties; during electoral processes; and between the Naga national political groups. At any other time or platform there is self-censorship because of one’s allegiances to various groups. Therefore, although the word inclusive became one of the jargons of the peace talks, every group had their different grounds for their stands.
In such a scenario, the start of negotiations between the Working Group of the 6 NNPGs and the GoI has put into action the word inclusive. As past mistakes and shortcomings are being publicly discussed, it is time to discard the emotions attached to one’s group and instead try to logically chart out the final settlement together. The only emotion left should be for the common Naga identity. Compromises for the sake of the common good will also have to be considered because the whole meaning of negotiation is lost if there are no gives and takes. The FNR at the right time have declared that “Exclusivity is the ultimate betrayal of Naga identity”. It is not a coincidence that the word inclusive is the opposite of exclusive.
