It is neither necessary nor am I interested to react to every point of responses to questions by the Interlocutor Sri. R. N. Ravi which was published by Nagaland Post dated 15.7.2016. Yet, just for academic interest, I am reacting to few issues which I considered to be contentious in nature.
The first is about ‘separate Passport’ or Naga Passport. My personal knowledge on the Identity Card (ID) called Passport and its implications are limited. What I know about the Passport is that the National Identity Card of a person belonging to that Nation. A citizen of a Nation possesses other indigenous ID cards like PAN Card, Voter Card, Adhar Card or Driving Licence issued by any competent authority is for validation of his/her identity as the bona fide inhabitant of a State in India. These ID cards are for the exclusive use within one’s own State or in the country. Any of these ID cards are not legal enough for identification of one’s nationality outside the country, India.
Whereas, the Passport is the nationality identification card exclusively for International purposes. The Passport is the only international legal ID of a person. And only a sovereign Nation has the legal authority to issue Passport to its citizens. And eachsovereign Nation recognizes the Passport of a citizen from another sovereign Nation. On the basis of the validity of Passport of a visitor, the permission of a country to which the visitor intends to visit called Visa is issued. An Indian cannot use the Passport of Pakistan or Bangladesh for the purpose of foreign visits which is a very serious international offense punishable under law. I heard about people being imprisoned for abuse of Passport.
The ‘separate passport’ meaning Naga Passport used to figure as one of the supposed demands of NSCN(M) in local media. My understanding of Naga Passport is this: Sovereignty has been the aspiration of the Nagas over the last 87 years since representation to Simon Commission in 1929. Nevertheless, Nagas have been subjugated to Indian sovereignty all these years. The Naga nation is yet to be a sovereign nation no matter whatever rights we have. Reiterating what I have written earlier, an aspirant nation becomes sovereign only when some other sovereign nations do publicly recognize that nation as sovereign.
Under the given circumstances, the Naga passport, if at all granted by India, will become controversial for the fact that other nations will not entertain Naga passport. In other words, no country will grant Visa in favour of the Naga Passport holder. If my understanding of the matter is valid, what is the point for anybody to give so much importance to what is not practical.
The second is the equally much talked about ‘shared sovereignty’. When Nagaland Post correspondent questioned Ravi on this aspect, the Interlocutor said ‘There is no question of Nagas giving up sovereignty. Nagas are not colonized people’. Is Ravi encouraging the aspiration of the Nagas for sovereignty? If so, thank you. Or does it mean that Nagas cannot be prevented from having the aspiration for sovereignty? Or does it mean Nagas should feel satisfied in sharing the sovereign power of India? ‘Sharing sovereign power means sharing the spectrum of powers between the government of India and the Nagas’ as quoted from Post dated 15.7.2016. To my understanding of the comment, it is farcically evasive. As for a highly intelligent, shrewd and experienced retired officer like Ravi, how and why could he coined the answer ambiguously? An ordinary man like myself understand that two sovereign nations do not share one sovereignty. Also, a community of people under a sovereign nation never becomes a sovereign entity nor can it become equals. Without a separate constitution of its own, without an Independent government of its own and without a definite territory of its own no community becomes sovereign.
Instead of soft peddling with the issue, Ravi should have said that granting sovereignty to Nagas is not negotiable, and yet as it is Nagas have been sharing Indian sovereignty under the arrangement of Statehood as for the Nagas of Nagaland, and other Nagas in others States can be given the status of Autonomous District Council would have been more transparent.
Nevertheless, in the first place I do not blame Ravi for being evasive. The internal discord of the Nagas is the opportunity for Ravi to ill-treat and undermine the Nagas. See the double talk of India’s representatives in handling the Naga cause. When they go to visit Manipur, Assam or Arunachal they used to assure each of them that their territorial integrity will be protected. Whereas, when they come to Nagaland they prefer to remain silent as though giving hope to Nagas for integration. The 18 months was the initial time frame given by BJP Govt. in Delhi, and now Ravi backtracked saying ‘laying down a definite time frame would be unrealistic’. This being the attitude of the GOI towards us, it is time for the Nagas to realize the peril of our differences.
