[dropcap]K[/dropcap]K. Sema’s grand narrative of Naga past history finally ended in a confusing manner and an attack on a particular group and its leadership, but more damaging on the Naga national movement and their history which he seemingly claims and tries to champion. His article at the “Centre for North East Studies and Policy Research” at Jamia Milia Islamia on September 5, 2014 at New Delhi appears to be more like a propaganda stunt filled with biased and narrow-minded opinion.
To begin with, I.A.S KK Sema is to some extent right when he said that the Nagas did more harm than what the Indians could. It is but clear that there are only two types of Nagas. One type that upholds the historical and political rights of the Nagas and the other that does not. It is on account of the deviation from such national principles that some Nagas including national workers, politicians, bureaucrats and even church leaders went on to support the signing of the 16 Point agreement and the 1975 Shillong Accord of unquestionably high treason.NSCN is for reconciliation and to this end we initiated the process in 2007, basing upon the national principle that has its foundation on the “historical and political rights of the Nagas”. We are not opposed to reconciliation and there also should be only one National Government.
However, I.A.S. Sema, we would appreciate your view on these two pertinent issues of “Reconciliation” and “One government one tax”. But it has to be questioned as to what the basis of your assertion is and what are your parameters on these issues? What are the “Christian principles” and the “National principles” that you have mentioned in your presentation.
To us, reconciliation is a national necessity considering the larger interest of our nation. We are honest enough to call spade a spade as you have correctly mentioned. The basis of reconciliation will be the admission of the “POLITICAL MISTAKES” by all. Because it was the political mistakes committed by some Nagas that has divided the Nagas deeply and strengthened the hands of the enemies to play their “divide and rule” within the Naga society.
Does I.A.S Sema know that the signatories of the Shillong Accord were certified, sanctioned and approved by Zashei Huire President, Federal Govt. of Nagaland to negotiate the Shillong Accord and the two leaders opposed the Accord of treason?
Since KK Sema is seemingly ignorant of certain important facts of history, may we therefore ask him as to who dismantled the Naga National Council (NNC)? Was it Isak and Muivah, whom he is so fond of blaming and accusing for all the woes in the Naga society or was it the “Marshall Law administrators” and the “Accordist” led by one Subung Ao who captured the power from NNC by staging coup and put Mr. Isak and Muivah under house arrest for nearly eighteen months (1978-1979) ? Their graves were dug three to four times. All of these on account of the fact that they condemned the Shillong Accord. It was the rational intervention of Lt. Tajen Yuba Ao (The author of “British Occupation of Naga Country”) who at the right time intervened that the two leaders must not be harmed by the Ao national workers. Would Mr. I.A.S Sema be sincere enough to acknowledge all these facts?
Therefore, in order to make things very clear the political mistakes that must be condemned to facilitate reconciliation will include:
1. 16 Point Agreement
2. The 1975 Shillong Accord
3. The Coup and dismantling of the NNC by the “Military Law Administrators”
4. The blood path carried out by SS. Khaplang in 1988.
5. Cease-fire with the GoI under the “Law of the Land”.
After making a sincere assessment of all these political mistakes which had led to the division amongst the Nagas we can honestly conclude as to who upholds the historical decisions taken by the Naga people in 1951 and who has betrayed that decision.
I.A.S. Sema’s interjection on what should have and not have been done after the 1975 Shillong Accord indicates a deliberate way of justifying the people who had signed the notorious Shillong Accord, which betrayed the Naga peoples’ 1951 plebiscite decision. Does he think that his intellectual assumptions or hypotheses could have saved the nation from such a peril like the Shillong accord by impeaching AZ. Phizo? Infact, Isak and Muivah made AZ. Phizo the President of both the Naga National Council (NNC) and the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) in the national assembly held at Suphao. But the last straw that broke the camel’s back of keeping the NNC was broken by the military coup organized by the “Accordist” and the “Martial Law Administrators” who as mentioned captured NNC, its leadership and declared martial law.
He is right when he says; do the Nagas fight for 6 different types of sovereignty or just for one? But, on this matter I.A.S Sema has to truthfully state the position and record of each group. We can then asses the fairness of his opinion concerning the legitimacy of the groups who claim that they are upholding the history and political rights of the Nagas. Is it too inconsequential for him to mention the people or group who had negotiated to achieve the recognition of the “Unique history and situation of the Nagas” or is it sheer jealousy or lack of knowledge that he just stop short of mentioning that it was the NSCN who had negotiated to conclude such official recognition ?
The Government of India (GoI) realized the uselessness in having negotiation with the NNC based on the 1975 Shillong Accord. It also realized the futility of military solution after more than 20 years of fierce fighting with the NSCN. On August 1, 1997 cease-fire was declared between the NSCN and the GoI and political dialogue was initiated at the 1) Highest level 2) without pre-conditions and 3) Outside India in a third country. 17 years and more than 80 rounds of talks have transpired in order to conclude a negotiated and honorable political solution between the two parties. On July 11, 2002 the “Unique history and situation of the Nagas” was recognized and it was also categorical that solution of the Indo-Naga issue will be based on that recognition.
Considering the facts mentioned, what is the premise of I.A.S Sema on the issue of “sovereignty” and “integration” which he claims has been left out from the political negotiation of the NSCN and the GoI. Does he know that Isak Chishi Swu the Yaruiwo of the NSCN/ GPRN and Th. Muivah, the Ato Kilonser and Chief negotiator of the Indo-Naga talks have on many occasions promised that they will come back to the Naga people in the event of a final political solution to the Naga issue. Do the steps taken by the NSCN at the three levels mentioned and the subsequent official recognition of Naga history by the GoI imply any compromise of the Naga issue? What and which factions is he trying to legitimize as a serious stakeholder on the Naga issue by misinforming the Nagas. Are the sacrifices of the freedom fighters and the decision of the 1951 plebiscite which decided our future by exercising the right of self-determination so cheap that it should be surrendered under the 1975 Shillong Accord or under the “Law of the land”? Is the sacrifice of the thousands of Naga freedom fighters just for a solution within the present Nagaland state as projected by Kitovi? Is the present Nagaland state the “bedrock of Naga society” as claimed by SC. Jamir et al? While putting these queries are we so blind that we cannot see through the intent of I.A.S. Sema whose thinking does not go beyond personalized attack on a group or leadership but whose objective is for the consolidation of the 16 Point Agreement and worshipping his treacherous employers.
For the NSCN the unity of Nagas would be based on the “Biblical principle” because reconciliation is possible only in Christ and secondly, on the HISTORICAL & POLITICAL RIGHTS OF THE NAGAS. Whoever has deviated from the national path must either return towards the path of truth or face the verdict of the people.
First, therefore, would I.A.S Sema clarify his position on some of the pertinent issues that has divided the Nagas including, the 1975 Shillong Accord; the “Martial law administrators” who captured and destroyed the power of NNC; the notorious bloodbath unleashed by Mr. S.S. Khaplang in 1988 and the Cease-fire under the “law of the land” (India) by the NSCN (K) when Kitovi was then its General Secretary and his group (so called unification) also is under the same cease-fire.
Second, could I.A.S Sema also give his sincere remark on the cease-fire and political dialogue of the NSCN and the GoI that is at the highest level, without pre-condition and outside India in a third country; and the subsequent recognition of the “Unique history and situation of the Nagas” by the GoI.
Hence, what would be the safest path and the principle for the Nagas to reconcile and unite? Is it to be on the platform of the first or the second? Where would the rallying point be for the Nagas as one Nation? Is it to be on the surrendered “1975 Shillong Accord” or “Under the law of the land (India)” or is it to be on the “Historical and political rights of the Nagas” that is now officially recognized by the GoI.
On the issue of “One Tax One Government”, is I.A.S Sema honest enough to tell the truth or instead is he trying to legitimize groups who had betrayed the aspiration and cause of the Nagas that was clearly declared by the 1951 plebiscite. Does the “1975 Accord” or “cease-fire under the law of the land” uphold the national principle? And are these groups legitimate enough to demand support from the Naga people? Is he and the so called ACAUT ready to admit the real facts of history?
What is his agenda as the advisor of the so called ACAUT in attacking the Naga people movement by advising and instigating it to pass anti-national resolutions which states, “the warring factions should be coerced enough to reconcile and this is achievable if the Naga people stop giving tax including Household and ration tax. Household tax is the sole tax which legitimizes the different factions. Therefore, the Chairmen and GB’s of colonies and villages are not to entertain these two taxes under any circumstances. It’s time for the Naga civil society to stop encouraging any division in the movement.” (2nd May, 2014). He and the ACAUT members were invited on several occasions for dialogue and consultation with the members and the leadership of the NSCN. However, in spite of this they have gone ahead to politicize the issue of tax and have started a treacherous offensive against the Naga National Movement through such resolutions in the name of “unabated tax”.
Is it on account of ignorance or pure jealousy and prejudices which had triggered the frame of mind of I.A.S Sema. In the name of “one tax and one Government” and in order to stop the so called “unabated tax” he cannot force the process of reconciliation on anyone just for the sake of “unity” without considering the correct historical and political facts. Neither can he legitimize groups who have betrayed the Naga peoples’ historical mandate of 1951 as a Naga National Movement fighting for the Naga cause and sovereignty. Does he have the courage to point out the political stand of those groups who claim to represent the Nagas?
The NSCN is clear on what the national principle is. It will never accept the Accord of treason neither would it accept the “Law of the land” as the historical and political rights of the Nagas. The NSCN will not deviate from the path of the historical task entrusted upon it, come what may. Be warned, historical distortion of such magnitude by I.A.S. Sema is the handiwork of the enemies. We are persuaded that the applause received by him from his mentors is clearly an affront to the Naga nation.
Kuknalim
MIP:
NSCN/ GPRN
