‘Stakeholder’. This has become the catchword in the lexicon of Naga politics used by all hue and colors these days. It became even more pronounced after the August 3, 2015 Framework agreement signed between the Govt. of India and NSCN (IM). The usage seems to have its root in the concept that Naga nationalism politics is not the exclusive preserve of nationalists only as the solution would affect all alike, underground or over-ground. To know who the rightful stakeholder is, a brief recap of the history of Naga nationalism politics is imperative.
Before the British formally departed from her Naga Hills district Commonwealth colony, Nagas under the banner of Naga National Council (NNC) declared Nagaland a sovereign nation on August 14, 1947, one day ahead of India’s independence on August 15, 1947. That made Nagaland a separate nation and Naga a separate nationality. It was a precautionary measure to let the entire world know the separate sovereignty of Nagaland and to thwart India’s motivated plan to annex Nagaland. Naga independence declaration made on August 14, 1947 encompassed the entire Naga country.After the declaration of Naga independence, some Indian leaders claimed that only a handful of educated Nagas were talking about the independence of Nagaland. To dispel all doubts and put on record for all times to come, NNC conducted a Plebiscite on May 16, 1951. Plebiscite became necessary in all British administered Naga territories because the plan of transfer of power to India had included those Naga territories. British administered Naga territories included Naga Hills districts of Assam, Naga Hills areas of Manipur and Naga inhabited territories of erstwhile North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), now called Arunachal Pradesh. Thus, Nagas led by NNC conducted plebiscite in Naga territories of erstwhile Naga Hills district. The result was 99% mandate for complete independence. The Nagas of Free Nagaland had never fallen to British conquest and administration. Therefore, the question of conducting plebiscite in those Naga territories did not arise. The Nagas of NEFA did not get the opportunity to participate in the plebiscite. The NNC asked the southern Nagas under British Manipur (Princely) State’s administration to participate in the plebiscite but they refused.
In 1960, the Naga People’s Convention (NPC) projected itself as the main stakeholder and usurped the entire show by signing the 16-point agreement (16-PA) with the Government of India (GoI) resulting in the creation of Nagaland (covering Naga Hills Tuensang Area only) as the sixteenth State in the Union of India. NPC was not even people’s organization in strict sense of structural and functional definitions. The NNC and FGN out-rightly rejected the 16-PA. NPC was the progeny of Cooperation (anti-independence) group. Incidentally, the cooperation group members too were party to NNC’s declaration of Naga independence and Plebiscite. Therefore, they were branded as traitors because they violated the Lakhuti Resolution passed by NNC in 1955. Had the Cooperation group/NPC signed the 16-PA before Nagas declared separate independence or were they not party to independence declaration and plebiscite, that question did not arise. By accepting 16-PA, NPC group as the stakeholders had already claimed their stake/share. That was how they have become affluent while the stakeholders of independence group continue to live in abject poverty. It is surprising what more share/stake they are talking about now.
Now, some people may say some of the Naga Political Groups’ (NPG) leaders are either equally wealthy or even richer than NPC group. However, let us be very clear that true patriots never bartered their principle of sovereignty. It is only those pseudo-nationalists, who accumulated wealth in the name of nationalism.
16-PA changed the course of Naga independence history but the goal for sovereignty remains the same because the other groups of stakeholders continue to pursue it. None should say all Nagas, irrespective of underground or over-ground has been enjoying the same fruit of statehood because that was the compelling situation created by India for Nagas to live with. Nagas need to stop thinking that 16-PA was a lesser evil than Shillong Accord, just because 16-PA was signed by non-nationalist group. Both were equally same because both bartered the principle of Naga sovereignty.
Thus, the real and rightful stakeholders are those Nagas who have steadfastly upheld the principle of the sovereignty of Nagaland. People, who had already claimed their shares have no more moral and political right to claim as stakeholders in the sovereignty of Nagaland, unless they return to the national principle. People talking about honorable and acceptable solution from India are those who had given up sovereignty. They can only talk within the constitution of India. The sovereign right of Nagaland will not change by evolving solution with non-stakeholders.
