Naga Memorandum to Simon Commission, declaration of Naga Independence by the Naga National council, and, Naga Plebiscite, are our foundational identity—the very soul of our existence.
The historical and political rights of the Nagas, to mention
a few, Naga Memorandum to Simon Commission, 1929, declaration of Naga
Independence by the Naga National council, 1947 and, Naga Plebiscite, 1951, are
our foundational identity—the very soul of our existence. Their survival is not
in question, regardless of claims that "Naga sovereignty" has been
compromised in accordance with contemporary realities. The truth is this:
sovereignty is not lost; it is only constrained by our perception. If we,
Nagas, continue to limit ourselves within rigid constructs, sovereignty will
remain an abstraction rather than a lived political reality.
Thus, as I have often stated, “without obliterating the
historical and political rights, we must initiate constructive nationalism
without delay.” Idealistic nationalism, without a fitting political form,
remains detached from practical realities. Unfortunately, Nagas have either
been naively idealistic or intellectually constrained—unable to see beyond the
Westphalian Treaty of 1648. The backward-looking historical view has stalled
our forward movement, appearing in various forms: from narratives that
rationalise one's correctness to myths of "othering" that serve no
real purpose.
Additionally, our political complexities—shaped by ancestral
village pride, sovereign traditions, and communal rigidity—severely hinder
collective progress. The dominant geopolitical forces surrounding us further
exacerbate these challenges. Therefore, the time has come for Nagas to rethink
their political approaches and pursue pragmatic, imaginative ordering—ones that
uphold our historical and political rights without delay. This pragmatic
approach should not be viewed as a compromise/betrayal of the Naga cause but a
creative response that adapts to the challenges and opportunities, allowing the
reconstruction of meaningful peoplehood in the twenty-first century. This is
also what most indigenous and politically marginalised communities in the world
are doing.
Crucially, Nagas are not compromising Naga sovereignty but
recognising the existential necessity of building a bridge to reach the goal.
This bridge is not our political solution in itself, but that “ordering” is
rather a "trust relationship"—a foundation upon which true political
resolution can be realised. Without trust, reconciliation and collaboration
remain mere concepts, not active forces of transformation.
Naga politics suffers from internal conflicts, factionalism,
and a culture of individual correctness. The prevailing tendency to protect
self-interests, village pride, and communal divisions has eroded the potential
for collective vision and coordinated action. Worse still, the defensive and
reactive approach has led to political stagnation rather than meaningful
transformation. This rigid stance not only undermines the ecology of Naga
cooperation but also exposes our vulnerabilities to external pressures. If left
unchecked, this culture is insidiously self-destructive.
Rather than being shaped by dominant geopolitical powers,
Nagas must harness their unique historical and cultural strengths to build a
model that reflects contemporary realities. We can engage with India not as
passive recipients but as active architects of a fitting political ordering—one
that empowers both sides. If executed properly, the Naga-Indo political model
could serve as a groundbreaking precedent for ethnic political frameworks
globally, particularly in this postmodern era.
In this endeavour, we must recognise the importance of
marginalised communities in shaping new political realities. The power of the
marginalised is not merely symbolic—it is transformative when mobilised
strategically. The Nagas must realise that shifting geopolitical realities
provide opportunities to initiate an inclusive political dialogue that
challenges idealistic notions of sovereignty.
William MacAskill’s concept of "long-termism"
offers valuable guidance. Instead of focusing on short-term gains and
fragmented agendas, we must prioritise sustainability and resilience. Political
vision should not be pressured by history alone but driven by adaptability and
innovation—the call for crafting the praxis of a dialogical nationalism. We
must shift from "how to solve" the Naga political issue to
"resolving" it—ensuring that reconciliation, institutional guarantees,
and inclusive governance form the backbone of political transformation.
At this critical juncture, what Nagas need is not more
ideological debate, but institutional mechanisms that ensure implementation. A
collaborative framework between Nagas and the Government of India should be
established without further delay. This structure must uphold human rights,
reject intolerance and hatred, and foster political evolution.
The decades of political uncertainty should have matured our
understanding of global geopolitics. Clinging to past policies and rigid group
structures will only hinder progress. Now is the time to redefine our political
order—not just externally, but within ourselves.
I humbly call upon Naga conscientious fellows and non-Nagas
in critical solidarity to join in forging a transformative political path—one
anchored in common humanity, mutual respect, and collective empathy. Let us
move forward not with hesitation, but with unwavering resolve.
Rev. Dr. Wati Aier, Emeritus Professor of Constructive
Theology and Philosophy,
Oriental Theological Seminary
(This article is not a reflection of any organisation as
much as a personal view)
