The recent appeal by former leaders and members of the Naga Hoho to rebuild and revitalize the institution under the vision of "One people, One Voice" deserves serious reflection.
The recent appeal by former leaders and members of the Naga Hoho to rebuild and revitalize the institution under the vision of "One people, One Voice" deserves serious reflection. The aspiration for Naga unity is noble and should remain a collective objective. However, we must also recognize the realities of the Naga people today.
The Nagas are spread across different States, regions and international boundaries, with numerous tribes, sub-tribes, customary institutions and regional aspirations. In such a complex situation, bringing every Naga tribe and organisation under one single banner may be extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible.
This does not mean that Naga unity is impossible. It simply means that we may need to rethink the structure through which we pursue that unity.
Unity Should Not Mean Centralization
One of the major challenges of any pan-Naga organisation is representation. Who represents whom? Who decides who is a legitimate representative of a particular tribe or region?
Instead of attempting to bring all Nagas directly under one central organisation, a more practical approach could be to build representation on the basis of districts and indigenous tribes.
Every district and indigenous Naga tribe should have the right to send its genuine representatives to a common Naga platform. The fundamental qualification should be simple: a person representing a tribe or community must genuinely belong to that indigenous tribe by birth, ancestry and recognised community identity. No one should arbitrarily deny the indigenous identity of a genuine member of a tribe.
Indigenous Identity Should Not Depend on Organisational Recommendation
Another important issue is the requirement for recommendations or endorsements from Tribal Hohos.
Tribal Hohos and traditional institutions undoubtedly play an important role in protecting tribal interests and preserving customary traditions. They deserve respect. However, a person's indigenous identity should not entirely depend upon whether he or she receives a recommendation from a Tribal Hoho.
If a person genuinely belongs to a particular Naga tribe through birth, ancestry, family, clan and community identity, that should be sufficient to establish his or her indigenous belonging. One should not necessarily require a recommendation letter from a Tribal Hoho merely to prove that he or she belongs to his or her own indigenous tribe.
Indigenous identity is acquired through birth, ancestry and belonging—not through political favour or organisational approval.
A person may disagree with the leadership of a Tribal Hoho, may not be a member of it, or may not have sought its endorsement. But none of these circumstances automatically mean that the person is no longer indigenous to his or her tribe. Organisational membership and indigenous identity are two different matters.
Representation Must Come from the Grassroots
A stronger and more democratic system could be built from the grassroots: Village/Community → Tribe/District → Regional Representation → Common Naga Platform
Each district or indigenous tribe could select its own representatives through an open and transparent process. Representation should not become the monopoly of a few existing organisations. The Naga people are larger than any single organisation.
One Voice Does Not Require One Organisation
Perhaps we should reconsider what "One people, One Voice" truly means. Having one collective voice does not necessarily mean that every Naga must to one organisation. We can remain different tribes, communities and regions, maintain our customary systems and even hold different political opinions, while still standing together on matters affecting our collective interests.
Unity does not require uniformity. A federation or common platform consisting of legitimate district-wise and tribe-wise representatives may be more practical than one central institution attempting to represent everyone.
No tribe should dominate another, and no region should feel excluded. Every tribe should have ownership over its representation, every district should have a voice, and every indigenous Naga community should be treated with dignity and equality.
Conclusion
As a social activist and a concerned Naga, I strongly believe that the dream of Naga unity should continue. However, we must adopt practical and realistic approaches. It may be nearly impossible to bring every Naga tribe, organisation and region directly under one banner. Instead, a district-wise and tribe-wise representative system could offer a more inclusive and democratic path towards collective unity.
Every genuine indigenous Naga should have the opportunity to participate and represent his or her community without necessarily being dependent on recommendations or endorsements from a Tribal Hoho.
Let Tribal Hohos continue to protect tribal interests. Let customary institutions preserve our traditions. But let us also create a wider democratic space where every genuine indigenous Naga can participate in shaping our collective future.
The future of Naga unity should not be based on who has the power to exclude, but on how successfully we can include every legitimate voice. One People does not mean one tribe. One Voice does not mean one organisation. True unity means respecting every indigenous identity while standing for the common future of the Naga people.
A. Shyerhunlo Lorin
Social Activist, Concerned Citizen