“Government of India attaches utmost importance to the Naga issue…”, said Shri. KirenRijiju, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs in the wake of state election before solution whereas the Naga People’s civil society organizations gear up for solution before election. But is it a Naga issue or a India/Burma issue or perhaps more so India/Burma aggression?
Over 7 decades have passed since the historical struggle of the Naga people against the occupation of India and Burma over Naga Homeland began. The position of Naga people is very clear yet at the same time the occupational forces are trying tooth and nail to suppress the aspiration of the Nagas in every way possible. In earlier speeches and articles, I have mentioned that Nagas are under attack not just in terms of military action but on every front: economically, socially, culturally, educationally, philosophically, academically and in terminology; terms and terminologies are an important factor in our struggle in this 21st century political trend.
We deeply appreciate our elders, pioneers and ancestors not only for their physical sacrifice but also for their farsightedness in employing correct terms and terminologies while defining and presenting our struggle. For decades now we have been engaged in a political dialogue with India. The Government of India increasingly is employing certain language to wash away and adulterate the legitimacy of Naga struggle and aspiration. Some assume the Government of India is ignorant of using such a language but it rather looks it is done on purpose. While observing the use of terminology it is not just Kiren but other Indian politicians and representatives and foremost the media that refer to Indo-Naga-Burma conflict as Naga ‘issue’ or Naga problem or similar terms, making it look it is Naga initiated. They further describe Naga struggle as a mere internal affair which does not require international intervention. Some Nagas have been influenced with the type of language India uses to define our struggle. In fact, this one-sided definition is costly because it implies the conflict is born by Nagas. On the contrary this conflict started with the invasion of India into Nagaland and thus it is an Indian conflict with Nagas and with Burma since in 1953 Nagaland was divided between India and Burma. Hence:
Issue – it is not Naga issue. Even if it is an issue, it is not our issue. It is rather the issue of India and Burma because it is created by them through illegal occupation of Naga Homeland. Indo-Naga-Burma conflict was not created by Nagas but by India and Burma who inherited the conflict from the British. It would be so wrong to describe the struggle of Naga people ,who have never been subjugated, against the invasion, occupation, atrocities and denial of inalienable birthright, as an issue.
Another deliberate misconception in terms is Insurgency and Rebellion- Nagas took to arms in defense of their land against the invasion; they did not attack India nor Burma but resisted the occupational forces. So, this is neither insurgency nor rebellion for the struggle has been acknowledged in the ceasefire agreements of 1964 and 1997 that it is between two nations. It was never mentioned as Nagas being part of Indian nation or of Burmese nation. So Nagas did not cause internal problems and do not rebel against India or Burma for their imposed system but Naga struggle is in defense of their nationhood because their sovereignty has been challenged with disproportionate military might: torture, arrest, rape and killing including innocent civilians, women and children. The occupational forces are –even today- violating all forms of international law.
Nagas do not demand anything from India and Burma but tell them to withdraw their occupational forces thereby leaving Nagas and their homeland as they were before. Our struggle is to let the occupational forces recognize the Independence formally declared on 14th of August 1947 and let the world know this. Nothing more nothing less.
– many tend to believe and assert that Naga struggle is a constitutional problem of India and Burma, justifying that the case must be solved internally. For instance, when we look at the map, it is clear an international border cuts through the heart of Naga Homeland; this happened without the consent of the people and was secretly decided on by then Prime Ministers Nehru and U Nu. The imposed international boundary in the heart of Naga Homeland cannot be accepted as a mere internal issue. This is an international conflict between the three nation states viz. India, Naga Homeland and Burma.
– Activities exercised in favor of Naga struggle to live a free people are tagged as illegal by both the occupational governments, thereby branding Naga movement as illegal. But the question comes into picture asking what is legal and illegal in the context of Naga struggle. When Nagas are already a nation having its own system and structure to live as a sovereign state, how can the occupational forces accuse Nagas of being illegal for what Nagas execute the matters in accordance with its own system? While Nagas respect the legal systems of India and Burma, Naga legality must also be respected in all the spheres. Nagas are a nation, thus both India and Burma are required to judge or see through the lens of Naga legal system to decide either legal or illegal.
–fancy language used by India and Burma mentions the Naga Homeland has been inherited from the British colonial Government. Both India and Burma use this language frequently when referring to their political legitimacy over Naga Homeland. But on what is their claim based? Nagas never saw the legal document proving the transfer of Naga Homeland by the British to the emerging India and Burma. Historically the naked truth is that there is no such evidence showing the Naga Homeland has been gifted to India and Burma. Even if it was so, it would have been illegal for British Government because the British only conquered and administered around 30 % of Naga Homeland; they called the rest unadministered areas of the Free Nagas. So from this point of view one cannot give something away one does not own. There is no historical document or evidence shown to the Nagas their Naga Homeland belongs to India and Burma. This is why the British Government mentioned the birthplace of Dr. Phizo and his brother in their passports as Nagaland, neither India nor Burma. Jawaharlal Nehru the first Prime Minister of India himself knew the fact of Naga Homeland being free from any occupation stated very clearly that “Those long frontiers [Naga territories] of India which are neither part of India nor Burma, nor of Indian states nor of any foreign power.” These historical facts cannot simply by-passed with mere changes of time or buried under the facade of Indian and Burmese sovereignty.
So, by using terms like Naga issue, Naga problem, rebels and insurgents India and Burma are making it look like the Nagas are ‘the bad guys’ where the opposite is true; India and Burma are the culprits and many thousands of Nagas paid the price for the vanity of their occupiers.
I hope and believe the correct use of language in politics will foster the effort for peaceful solution between the nations.
Kuknalim!
