I have read your response to my article, “Is Nagaland a failed State?” with great humility. In fact, I have been reading your articles since April 2016. Humility, because I hang my head in shame and my heart writhe in pain that Naga disunity has given space to a realist outside observer like you to point finger at Nagas in general. You have all the opportunities, which you may think your right too, to point out what is ailing a society that profess great love for Naga motherland. At a glance, one may observe that you aimed your writings at dampening our spirit of nationalism as revealed in one of your articles. (Quote) “My position on the Naga cause is that, it is doomed to failure” (unquote). However, on deeper scrutiny, I am convinced that you are testing the preparedness of the Nagas for reality check in international situation. I admire your power of observation, analysis and skill in presenting your points with force and precision beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals like me. I am inclined to believe that your right wing view on the sovereignty of Nagaland was more on purpose than actual. However, if you deny, I may conclude that your perception of Naga history and situation was entirely different from Nagas’ standpoint. In that case, my argument with you will be just an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, I do not question your liberty to look at our situation from a different perspective. I am clear that it is beyond the power of sovereign Nagaland to impose her will on you. The same is true with your will on Nagas. I also appreciate your downright frankness in opening out your heart to Nagas. The message you are conveying to Nagas is more than clear that Nagas need to come down to reality at ground. It is plainly visible that you are already an authority on Naga history and situation. I only wish that your writings on Nagas were more cohesive. I am saying this in all honesty because I find your selective contextual analysis of others’ works appeared more like fault finding than simply differing in opinion. Please accept my apology if my frankness hurt your feeling. As a retired criminal defense lawyer and a political philosopher; true to your professional expertise and practice, your style of argument akin to that of a full house courtroom case argument is without doubt, impressive. Nevertheless, such courtroom type argument will be worthless your efforts if the argument ends at your level. This is because of the fact that Naga fate is not in your court. Forgive me if I am too blunt but I must write the truth. Therefore, if you are determined to engage us in argument, you must first prove to Nagas that your voice matters at some level of powers. As for your questions posed to me, although I am not bound to answer, I am certainly tempted to do so. If your perception of our history and situation is different, my answers to your questions may not satisfy you. I only hope that your questions were with good intent and not just for the benefit of your research dissertation or for unseen powers working relentlessly to brainwash young Naga minds.
Firstly, I want to reflect on Naga stand that Nagas are not demanding independence from India. The basis for this stand had its origin/foundation in the declaration of sovereign Nagaland on August 14, 1947, a day earlier to India’s independence. Naga National Council (NNC), the lone political institution, which enjoyed the confidence of all Nagas at that time, had built that foundation. Whether or not, India and beyond acknowledge that declaration, it has gone on record in the history of sovereign state of Nagaland. No outside power will erase the reality of this history from the hearts of the Nagas. Again, the birth of sovereign Nagaland differed from that of sovereign India in that, the British dominant power granted independence to India on August 15, 1947 whereas, the sovereignty of Nagaland was self-assertion translated into a declared right on August 14, 1947. The British granted independence to India because Indians were British subjects. The question of India granting independence to Nagaland did not arise at all because Nagas were never Indian subjects before India became sovereign. The question of ‘demand’ comes only in the case of union. In Naga case, there never was any union. For that very fact and reason too, Nagas made unambiguously clear that Naga’s was not a case of secession. Your assumption that India will not, ‘CANNOT’ (which you wrote in capital letters to make a strong point) grant independence to Nagas was absolutely correct because Naga sovereignty is entirely separate from India and for which, Nagas will not and cannot demand from India. It is not even political because the sovereignty of Nagaland was not India’s internal politics. It is a case of sovereign India playing external politics on sovereign Nagaland. Therefore, be sure that any group demanding political settlement with India will not be sovereignty because sovereignty of either Nagaland or India is non-negotiable.
In contemporary situation, you may argue that Nagaland became a State in the Union of India. Thus, viewed from this aspect, you may argue your point of demand for independence from India as valid. Fact was that, Nagaland People’s Convention (NPC) and not the Naga National Council (NNC) signed the 16-point agreement with the Government of India (GoI). At that time, NNC was the only political institution mandated by the Nagas. The people’s mandate to NNC manifested in the form of Plebiscite conducted by NNC on May 16, 1951 wherein, all Nagas above 18 years had voted. The result of that plebiscite was astounding 99.9% mandate for independent Nagaland. Whether or not, other sovereign states, including India recognized that plebiscite, the universal convention was that, the will of the people should prevail. Nagaland People’s Convention was not a mandated Naga institution. It was a tribes’ representative body. Thus, the ‘political’ agreement that NPC had signed with the GoI was a ‘consultative’ agreement. Political, because it represented India’s subject, whereas, the sovereignty of Nagaland was not India’s subject. Consultative, because NPC had put on record that it had wide consultations with all tribes’ representatives before drafting the 16-point memorandum. The consultative process did not entail voting by the entire electorates. In absence of voting, the question of mandate did not arise because mandate required voting by the entire electorates. To sovereign Nagaland, India-created State of Nagaland was inconsequential. It was like a road speed breaker that could slow down the speed of a moving car but could not stop the passage over it. Statehood undoubtedly caused impediment but it has no power to stop restoration of sovereign Nagaland; restoration because the sovereignty of Nagaland preceded the sovereignty of India. India violated the honor of sovereign Nagaland by military aggression since 1954. The aggression took place when India miserably failed to impose her instrument of accession on Nagas from 1947 to 1953.
Your prediction that the GoI may send her military to crush the Naga people if they reject political solution and continue with the demand for independence was not without basis because India had attempted total annihilation of Nagas from mid 1950s through mid 1970s. Assam police and Indian Armed Forces tortured Nagas with all kinds of inhumane methods. When it became clear that India was not going to stop until total annihilation, Naga youths had no choice but to rise to the occasion and defend the sovereignty of Nagaland. This formed the basis, which stated that Naga’s is not a case of freedom struggle/movement but that of self-defense against external aggression. Until 1955, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s political philosophy of non-violence, NNC had resolutely followed that policy in all its political engagements with the GoI. At no stage of Indian aggression, Nagas had doubted the military capability of India to crush the Nagas. The self-defense war was a desperate measure because desperate situation had called for desperate measures at that point of time. Nagas had never doubted the futility of military confrontation with the GoI. Therefore, when Nagaland Peace Mission comprising of Rev. Michael Scott of England, Mr. B. P. Chaliha, the then Chief Minister of Assam and Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan, the Director of Sarvodaya movement of Vinoba Bhave made peace overture to the GoI and the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN); Nagas willingly accepted it. The FGN and GoI signed the bilateral ceasefire treaty on September 6, 1964 as equal sovereign entities and not as one subordinate to other. It surprised me when you emphasized so much about life and strongly advocated the welfare of the living average citizens of Nagaland; you talked in veiled threat about India crushing the Nagas with her military might. This is where Nagas need the goodwill of all humanists to prevail upon India not to attempt another Holocaust in Nagaland because Nagas have not an iota of doubt about the might of India. India definitely has military power and yet, no moral power to crush the Nagas. You might be right in saying no nation will come to the rescue of Nagas. Nevertheless, you will also not deny either that humanity is supreme over the state power. I believe that your advocacy of life over justice and truth as ground reality had a basis on the value and sanctity of that humanism. My mention of Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was merely for historical analogy with the Naga history as you rightly pointed out. Therefore, what will happen to these nations as consequences of USA’s pull out from NATO, I am not competent to comment. India has randomly branded Nagas as traitors and acted accordingly, but the word ‘traitor’ was misplaced because the sovereignty of Nagaland was not the internal affair of India.
Your pessimistic view that even if Nagaland becomes sovereign, Nagas have no resources to survive as a viable sovereign State was something that India and others had always worried for Nagas. I am quite optimistic that sovereign Nagaland will not be as helpless as you imagined for the simple fact that, even the poorest of the poor country is not friendless. The humanitarian services that the developed nations render to the poor, undeveloped nations proved that the world beyond is burdened by the sense of humanity towards fellow human beings. I disagree with your prediction of doom that Nagas will be in hopeless situation, as no nation would come to our rescue. That was nothing but a betrayal of humanity. However, you might be right if you are talking in Indian context, a democratic country with dismal human rights record. It appears that you drew your assumption from the records of India’s Human Rights Watch in which, the Naga genocide escaped their watchful eyes, which otherwise should have topped the list of her records from 1950s to 1970s. The Indian Armed Forces during that period had treated the Nagas in most inhumane ways. Their atrocities were not just simple violation of human rights but crimes against the very humanity. In the history of independent India, the Holocaust of Nagaland was the worst ever, unparalleled anywhere in India.
In one of your writings, you mentioned that, (quote) “Focusing on atrocities in the Indian-Nagaland context is irrelevant, no matter how tragic these atrocities were” (unquote). Your message was more than clear that you want the Nagas to forget the past and focus on the reality of life at hand. The line also proved what scant regard you have for the dead. Your opinion was that, compared to life that Nagas have to live now and beyond, those atrocities of Indian Armed Forces were best forgotten. There should not be any confusion in that, Nagas are prepared to forgive and forget those atrocities the day India pull out her armed forces from Nagaland and Nagaland restores the honor of her sovereignty. This has been the consistent plea of Nagas to Indians. Nagas had never hated the Indians but only hated the inhumane atrocities of her armed forces that nearly wiped out the Nagas. The occupation of Nagaland by Indian armed forces is a constant replay and reminder of that hatred. The presence of large number of Indian Armed Forces in Nagaland is a vindication that India truly dishonored the sovereignty of Nagaland. India tried to bury those atrocities by creating the Indian State of Nagaland. Let me highlight under what background situation/circumstance, Nagaland State in the Union of India came into being. In 1960, A .Z. Phizo landed in London with the atrocities report compiled at ground by the Federal Government of Nagaland to expose India’s Holocaust of Nagas and to plead to the world community to prevail upon India to stop it. Probably, Nehru had never imagined that Phizo was capable to that extent. In order to save India’s face, Nehru had no choice than to convert the external aggression into an internal affair of India. A section of the early-educated Nagas succumbed to Nehru’s bait. He succeeded in translating into action, the universal policy of non-interference in internal affairs of one sovereign State by other sovereign states. His action undoubtedly gained him immediate relief but it was not without regret and long-term ramifications. It became bad precedent as it sowed the seed of secessionist movements in other parts of India. Those background realities proved that to forget the atrocities of Indian armed forces is entirely upon India.
The creation of Nagaland State of India was never with any stretch of imagination to develop Nagaland. It was India’s larger political game. What more proof can we give than the sorry state of Nagaland for the past 53 years of existence? I agree that Nagas cannot fully absolve themselves of the mess and keep on blaming India for all our ills. The failure of dishonest leaders of Nagaland State to lead Nagas in the right direction was responsible for most of Nagaland’s ills. Instead of trying to achieve what they had promised to Nagas in the name of statehood, they simply became pawns of the GoI. Had the Naga leaders of Indian State of Nagaland in the helm of affairs being honest, the living condition of Nagas might have been different! There was nothing but betrayal and shame. I will be honest to admit that a development transformation of Nagaland had the possibility to convince most Nagas to forget about sovereignty. Both the Central and State governments missed that opportunity. At one stage of statehood, Nagas were optimistic but now pessimism has engulfed the young generation. There is desperation and frustration everywhere. People are not satisfied and in fact, angry at the deplorable roads, the sorry state of government schools and colleges, hospitals, lack of technical institutions, poor connectivity, rising unemployment, lawlessness wherein, extortion, multiple taxations, illegal syndicates all flourish. People are rising against corruption in high places where powerful leaders embezzle public funds for development without any fear. The cancer of corruption percolates down to all levels of government and semi government establishments. There is rampant power abuse in the form of nepotism and favoritism in appointments in public sectors and public undertakings. In such a state, what would people normally do? In most cases elsewhere in the world, people start revolution. For Nagas, it is a strong call to review statehood in its entirety. You talked about the right of average citizens of Nagaland for honorable life. Is it abnormal and unnatural then, to question the viability of statehood and a genuine call for appraisal? You have squarely blamed the NSCN (IM) for the vicious cycle of corruptions in Nagaland. It is for the NSCN (IM) to respond. However, I have the honesty and courage to agree with your assessment and judgment. What surprises me is that, the GoI is having a dialogue with NSCN (IM) you hold responsible and blamed for all the ills of Nagaland. I hope you have answer for this hypocrisy.
Your conclusion that a solution, which addresses all the problems confronting the Nagas, will meet the aspiration of sovereignty was no doubt optimistic but not convincing enough. The general belief and perception of outsiders (non-Nagas) is that, the sovereignty of Nagaland is under the disposal of India. This misconception stemmed from the fact that, either they are ignorant or refuse to see beyond the myopic context of India-created Nagaland State.
Finally, you may like to contest many of my points and engage me in your endless arguments but I repeat that, unless you have the power and goodwill to take Nagas beyond your courtroom, I will decline all your questions hereafter because it will be meaningless.
Dr. K. Hoshi
Phek Town
