Successive governments and its leadership are fettered within the parameter set by Nehru’s vision of solution to the Naga political issue but fell short of the Nagas aspirations.
Successive Indian Governments and its leadership are consciously or unconsciously fettered within the parameter set by Nehru’s vision of solution to the Naga political issue. However, this was inconclusive and fell short of the Nagas aspirations. The issue has continued to be dragged on for over eighty years. The Indian leadership devoid of political insight, continues to look within the flawed perceptions and misguided approaches of the past, and failed to discern how they have repeatedly contributed to its failure. All Indian political leadership irrespective of their affiliations, toeing on the same conceptual confinement of their predecessors, continued to perceive the existing policies of the past as the only viable framework. Various methods and ill-conceived tactics were applied; ranging from military suppression of Naga populace to submit, setting up of counter movement like Naga People's Convention (NPC), political fragmentation pursued through divide and rule policy and now wait and observe tactics.
An open minded understanding of the root cause and careful consideration of the Naga history is essential to reach any conclusive and enduring peace.
Concern regarding the territorial integrity of India is acknowledged. However, the more fundamental question is: Were Naga territories ever legitimately incorporated into India and upon what act of consent or transfer could such incorporation be said to rest on? The assertion that India inherited Naga territories merely by succeeding the British is historically and politically contestable. British presence, administration or military occupation in some portion of Naga areas cannot, by itself, be equated with the voluntary transfer of Naga sovereignty to India. At no point, did the Naga people enter into a written treaty surrendering their sovereignty to the British, nor did they subsequently enter into any instrument of accession to the Indian Union. The question, therefore, is not simply who administered the territory at a particular point in history, but upon what lawful basis sovereignty over the Naga country could be claimed by a successor State.
Moreover, the principle that territorial changes must accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned was expressly articulated in the Atlantic Charter of 1941. The Charter declared that there should be no territorial changes contrary to the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned and affirmed the right of peoples to choose the form of government under which they would live. These principles subsequently formed the basis of the development of the international system and the UN framework concerning self-determination.
The constitutional treatment of the Naga areas under British rule also raises a fundamental historical question. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the Naga Hills were classified as an Excluded Area, where ordinary federal and provincial legislation did not automatically apply and where the Governor exercised special authority over administration. It demonstrated that the Naga Hills were governed under a uniquely distinct constitutional and administrative regime. In addition, the special restrictions governing entry of any foreigner into the Naga Hills likewise reflected the exceptional unique character of British administration in Naga territory. The essential issue, therefore, remains one of consent, sovereignty and the political status of the Naga people.
The argument concerning the “security of the Indian frontier” is equally open to serious question. If security along a frontier is in itself sufficient justification for territorial acquisition, then the same logic could be invoked to justify territorial expansion along every frontier towards Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Myanmar and beyond to the end of the sea or world. Frontier security may be a legitimate concern of a State, but it cannot, by itself, create a right of territorial acquisition. The Naga question therefore cannot be reduced to a question of India's territorial security. The reality is that the Naga people constitute a small indigenous people who became an easy prey of the inherited colonial policy of the British implemented by India. The issue, therefore, is not whether India's territorial integrity matters. It unquestionably does. The real question is whether India's territorial claim over Naga territories rests upon a legitimate act of political consent or merely upon the inheritance of colonial boundaries.
India claims of Nagas consent by formation of Indian State called Nagaland in 1963 must also be understood in historical background. The Naga Club, the first Naga organization, submitted a memorandum to the Simon Commission on 10 January 1929, stating their apprehension and desire “not to be left at the mercy of alien government who never conquered us nor ever subjected to their rule but to leave us alone as in the ancient times to determine our future.” Further it stated that the Nagas lack in education, minority compared to plains population and our representation in the Indian Council will prove insignificant and thereby our rights and our voice negligible. Our language, religion and social practices differ, where we are look down by the Hindus for consuming “Beef” and the Muslim for “Pork”. The British, recognising the genuine concern of Nagas, placed the Naga Territory under Excluded Area through India Government Act 1935.
Formation of the Naga National Council (NNC) in 1946 is aligned with the expression stated in the Naga Memorandum of 1929, the NNC campaign for the Historical and Political Rights of the Naga. For almost a decade since 1946 to mid-1956, the NNC with the best intention, extended an olive branch and continued to pursue our aspiration through democratic and non-violent methods, insisting on our larger neighbour to recognise our historical and political rights. However, those approaches felt to deaf ears, and in turn treated us as primitive, savage and incapable, ironically, those derogatory characterizations were reflected in the manner in which they dealt with us by deploying the full might of modern Indian armed forces to suppress and inflict untold violence and misery upon the poor vulnerable Naga villages into submission.
On 14 August 1947, the Naga National Council declared Naga Independence, a day ahead of India. One of the most consequential developments followed soon after, conducting the 1951 Naga Voluntary Plebiscite, in which 99.9 percent of Nagas expressed their political will in favour of independence. In the years that followed, the Government of India and its intelligence agencies sought to undermine the NNC and weaken the institutional expression of Naga people’s mandate to NNC. It was in this political standoff that the Indian Intelligence Bureau, penetrated into the ranks of the NNC and at the same time befriended some educated Nagas and influenced them in setting up a parallel organization to nullify the 1951 Plebiscite resolution of the NNC. Hence, the Naga People's Convention (NPC) emerged in 1957.
The emergence of the NPC subsequently created the first political blunder and betrayal of the Naga National Movement. However, though ignoble, the historical circumstance and situation that led to the emergence of NPC must be noted. By 1953, the full-scale military suppression was inflicted on the Naga population to compel them to accept Indian Constitution. Villages were destroyed, concentration camps were established where villages were forcibly grouped and denied venturing outside where thousands died out of starvation, homes and granaries were burned, families were displaced, schools were closed, forced labour was imposed, and large numbers of people were driven into the jungles. Ordinary life was severely disrupted. Records from 1955 indicate that tens of thousands were killed, approximately 10,000 Nagas were beaten and tortured, including thousands of women; nearly two thousand men were maimed, 26,598 houses and thousands of granaries were burned down. Hence, it was under these circumstances of extraordinary coercion and insecurity and where the threat of wiping out the entire Naga people was ever present and ever real, sections of the Naga population submitted to arrangement imposed under overwhelming military pressure.
The subsequent 16-Point Agreement of 1960 and the creation of the State of Nagaland came into effect in 1963; while hailed by the Indian leadership, it did not fulfil the aspiration of the Nagas and consequently did not bring the conflict to an end. The armed confrontation continued, eventually creating conditions for a search for peace. In 1964, following the efforts of the Naga Baptist Church and the Peace Mission comprising Jayaprakash Narayan, Reverend Michael Scott and B. P. Chaliha, a ceasefire was reached between the Government of India and the Federal Government of Nagaland. The ceasefire formally came into effect on 6 September 1964, opening what was then regarded as a significant opportunity for a negotiated political settlement. The opportunity was followed by a series of peace talks beginning in 23 September 1964 and continuing into 1967 at the highest level. These discussions represented another attempt to address the substantive political issues underlying the conflict. However, despite several rounds of dialogue, the two sides failed to bridge their fundamental differences. The talks eventually reached a deadlock, and the political issue remained unresolved.
The subsequent decades followed a familiar pattern: political initiatives were introduced, agreements were signed, expectations were raised, and yet the fundamental question remained unresolved. The Shillong Accord of 1975 under which some underground representatives were forced to surrender and accept Indian constitution became another episode in this history, followed decades later by the 2015 Framework Agreement and the 2017 Agreed Position. The larger historical pattern, therefore, is not simply one of failed negotiations but of repeated attempts to redefine the parameters of the Naga political problem by imposing predetermined framework.
For the Nagas, the persistence of the issue across more than eight decades is itself evidence that the political aspiration cannot be extinguished through the use of military might, reinterpreting of Agreement to suit one’s narratives, the setting up of competing institution such as the NPC, dividing people and their lands in the name of administrative arrangements and political fragmentation through divide and rule. One wonders, how ruthlessly proud and how cunningly calculating, they must have felt, though short sighted, they failed to achieve an enduring settlement.
The continuing search for a settlement demonstrates that a durable solution must address the historical and political dimensions of the Naga issue rather than providing half measure solution by conceiving half measure plan. The history of the Indo-Naga conflict therefore remains a history of agreements without final settlement, ceasefires without lasting peace, and negotiations repeatedly interrupted by failure to recognize the fundamental Naga demand. Until the underlying political questions are addressed in a manner acceptable and honourable and inclusive to both parties concerned, the search for a genuine and enduring settlement will remain unfinished.
Phito Vero