Bedrock of Naga Society

State exists not only for mere life but also for the sake of good life. - Aristotle

The 16-Point Agreement of 1960 came about when the Nagas were going through the worst of times. But it was also one of the best things to have happened to the Naga people because it led to the birth of Statehood - on whose firm foundation our society is built. In a larger form of things, due to the Agreement, for the first time, the world recognised the territory of the Nagas as Nagaland.

But of late, there has been an increasing tendency to criticise the 16-point Agreement signed between the Naga People's Convention (NPC) and the Government of India that led to the creation of Nagaland State on December 1st 1963. The criticism implies that the 16-point agreement was a mistake, as the demand of the people was for complete independence from India. When carefully analysed, much of this criticism is bereft of historical facts and emanates from a section of frustrated politicians solely for the sake of narrow political and personal gains. Such groundless criticism can be safely ignored. However, what is of greater concern is that similar comments are also being made by impartial persons who have no political axe to grind and who genuinely have the interests of Nagas at heart. They too seem to believe that the 16-point agreement compromised the demand for a sovereign Naga nation. The voice of such persons deserves attention. It is, therefore, necessary that the truth should be stated and the record set straight. Let us talk on facts, not emotions. Emotions have a way of hiding the truth.

Sovereignty : Myth and reality
The fundamental assumption underlying the notion that Statehood compromised the sovereignty of Nagas, is that the Nagas were a separate independent entity from time immemorial till the British rulers conquered them. Therefore, when the British left India in 1947, the Nagas should have reverted to their independent status. Prima facie, this sounds an attractive proposition, but is it really true? Let us not be misled by words like 'time immemorial'. Did we have an independent political existence at all immediately before the British rule or even during the British days? Were we really an independent nation? A political entity or a nation has to be based on historical facts. It presupposes the existence of a definite political structure that governs a clearly demarcated area of land which is inhabited by a people who accept this arrangement and have close contacts with each other. It also demands that the political structure would be either a monarchy, a democracy, an autocracy, an oligarchy, a dictatorship or any other structure that is universally accepted by political scientists as an 'independent, self-governing and well defined political entity' or a 'nation'. Other areas in the North-East like Assam, Manipur, Tripura and the Kacharis had their territories and their kingdoms. Did we? The stark and inescapable truth is that neither did we have a definite and unified political structure and nor did we exist as a nation. We were actually a group of heterogeneous, primitive and diverse tribes living in far-flung villages that had very little in common and negligible contact with each other. Education did not exist and awareness about the world outside was totally absent. Each village was practically an entity in itself. A village does not make a nation. The main 'contact' between villages was through the savage practice of headhunting. Mutual suspicion and distrust was rife. People led an insular and isolated life. Interecine warfare was the order of the day. There was no trust or interaction between different tribes. In these circumstances, the question of a unified 'Naga nation' did not arise. No one can dispute these historical truths. There is enough documentation recorded by the British administrators, some as late as the end of the 19th century, which gives the correct picture as it existed. We cannot ignore such historical evidence and rely on emotional outbursts alone.

We continue to claim we were an independent nation till the British conquered us. Did we have a boundary for our nation? As late as the 1940's, when British rule was almost over, large parts of today's Nagaland did not even exist on their maps. Instead of showing villages the maps showed large blank white spaces with the words "Unadministered and Unsurveyed". Did we have a ruler or a Government? The writ of a village chief did not ex- tend beyond his village. Did we have a capital city where the Government sat? The British Deputy Commissioner sat in Kohima out of convenience. Was this the capital of the independent Naga nation that we claim existed before the British? Did we have a currency or a coinage like other kingdoms or nations? We lived on barter till the British introduced the rupee. Did we have armed forces to defend our nation? Did we have common laws, rules and regulations for our nation as a whole? Did we have an administrative apparatus to look after the welfare of the people? Did we have roads that linked the nation? The answer to all these are obviously in the negative. These questions cannot be ignored, especially by those who are educated and claim to be the intelligentsia of our society. Let us face the reality that existed. Let us not distort history and let us not fool ourselves any more. The plain fact is that we never existed as an independent, unified nation at any time in our history. Yes, each village existed Independently, but is that the equivalent of a Naga Nation? Even the names Naga or Angami or Ao or Sema or Chang were unknown to us. We called people of different tribes by other names. We led a primitive and brutish life in our villages, uncivilized and unlettered. The word of Christ was unknown and unheard of. Life beyond the village boundaries was unknown. Justice was rough and summary. Diseases went unchecked. Slavery was common. People lived and died without ever leaving their villages. We had no idea of the concept of a nation or independence or nationhood. Is it right to make these tall claims that we were an independent nation before the British conquered us? At least, let us be honest about our ancestry and our history. We Nagas always prefer honesty to falsehood, however painful the truth may be.

The then Naga way of life is best summed up by RB McCabe who, writing about the Nagas in the 19th century, says "Grouped in small communities of from 100 to 3,000 persons, the Nagas have remained isolated on their hill tops, only deigning to visit their immediate neighbours when a longing for the possession of their heads become too strong to be resisted".

Origin of Naga nationalism
Beginning from the early 1950s, the Naga "nationalism" gained momentum and was accelerated with the election of A.Z. Phizo as president of the NNC on Dec 11, 1950. Under Phizo's leadership, the Nagas conducted the Plebiscite of May 16, 1951 in which it is claimed 99.9% of the Nagas voted for independence. This Plebiscite emotionally integrated the various Naga tribes, and boosted the morale of the movement.

Most scholars agree that the whole Naga problem was ineptly handled by the then police and administration. The banning of the NNC in 1952 was a blunder which compelled the leaders to turn underground once and for all. The movement was given its first martyr when an officer of the Assam Police shot dead Zasibito Angami of Jotsoma village on October 18, 1952 during a public demonstration. The ban was a blunder because Delhi did not realise the popular support the NNC had at that point of time.

An opportunity to settle the problem once and for all came when the prime ministers of India and Burma visited Kohima on March 30, 1953. But the then deputy commissioner of Kohima, for reasons best known to him, did not allow the Nagas to submit a memorandum to the visiting prime ministers. The several thousand Nagas gathered at the venue to receive the VIPs turned and left the ground enmasse when they learned they were not to make themselves heard before the prime ministers. This was, indeed, a turning point in the history of the Nagas.

It is agreed that political will was lacking somewhere down the line. But more important, awareness of each other's way of life and reasoning was deplorably inadequate and thus, the impasse.

Division of the movement
The abduction, torture and killing of T Sakhrie by his own people saw the splitting of the movement into two with the majority of the Nagas finding themselves literally between the devil and the deep blue sea - on the one hand, the Indian troops harassed, tortured, raped and herded villagers into concentration camps and burned their granaries, and on the other hand, for the first and severest time in the history of Naga movement for self determination, Nagas began to hunt, torture and kill fellow Nagas which, understandably, divided the sympathy of the Naga people. The movement too, was divided and it fell into disarray. Several thousands of Nagas were killed; thousands more were tortured in the most inhuman manner; and the rest - the innocent public - suffered in the agony of having their loved ones killed and tortured - theirs was but to live in perpetual fear. They feared the Indian army, and they also feared their own people in the jungles.They neither liked the hammer nor the anvil.

And the sorry part of the whole saga of suffering was that there was nothing the world could do. Human rights awareness in these parts of the world in 1950s was almost absent and the innocents cried in silence and shed unseen tears.

The insensibility of the whole thing became simply mindboggling - but a clear conclusion dawned on the people: If the insanity was allowed to continue any longer, the very survival of the Nagas as a people would be put on the very brink of annihilation.

The people could not work their fields. They could not live their normal lives. And since agriculture was, as is, the mainstay of the Nagas, the spectre of a widespread famine loomed large on the horizons.

Hell on earth
It became obvious that we had over-estimated our strength and that the Government of India under-estimated our capabilities to fight a long-drawn out battle. At the same time, it also became painfully obvious that the public have suffered enough-too much blood had been shed and too many precious lives have been lost. Wives became widows and children became orphans; there was not a single family in all the Naga villages which had not lost a near and dear one to the atrocities of either Indian Army or the Naga undergrounds. The movement had become a nightmare for the Nagas.

The then prevailing situation in these hills was worse than the Hobbesian State of Nature where the worst in man was let loose upon their fellow beings. It was worse because fear, hatred and worst of all, suspicion was sown in the minds of the villagers for the first time. Villagers became suspicious of each other as a new group of people popularly known as intiligin (people who were under .he employ of the Military Intelligence) were recruited to spy and report on the activities of the underground as well as the villagers.

The Government of India was clear that sovereignty was not possible under any circumstances. And also sensing the mood of despondency among the people, it made clear that status quo should continue and the Naga Hi1Is would remain as a district of Assam. It seemed as if the Naga people had no future. It seemed as if the Nagas were destined to be lost in the multitude of people with alien culture, different thinking and aspirations.

Necessity of the times
It also appeared that the Naga movement initiated by Phizo had reached a dead end. And it was at this time that a few educated and patriotic persons who felt that the Naga people took stock of the then prevailing situation, and resolved that even if Independence was no possible, the land, identity and individuality of the Naga people should never be compromised with by remaining as a district of Assam.The choice was between survival and annihilation - the choice was between being submerged forever in Assam, or being recognised as a distinct entity having the freedom to exercise our traditional rights and respected as a people, or being trampled under the weight of dictatorship.
People's conventions
The generations of today cannot imagine the distress that the leaders of those days went through to take these choices. Many of these leaders were killed just because they voiced their feelings and convictions. But it is to their eternal credit that they did not take any decisions hastily or without consultations. They were, true to the spirit of the Naga ancestors, genuine democrats. They consulted and discussed all these issues in minute details with all the different tribes and even with those living outside Nagaland. Their sole intention was to ameliorate and alleviate the sufferings of the people and their efforts would be better appreciated when considered alongwith the fact that transport and communication as well as security in those days was nothing to write home about. However, the conviction that each and every group of Nagas should be thoroughly consulted before taking such a momentous decision as drawing up any agreement with the Government of India, overcome all hesitations and difficulties. Moreover, the leaders of that period took utmost care to ensure the voice and opinions of the villagers were heard, and a consensus was reached. After due deliberations, and ensuring that all the different tribes made their feelings known, the Naga People's Convention was formed and a series of meetings were held at Kohima in 1957, at Ungmna in 1958 and at Mokokchung in 1959 to seek the opinion of the people before responding to the invitation of the Government of India. It was understood from the very beginning that decisions would only be taken with the approval of the majority, and though not easy by any means to bring about a consensus opinion among the various, hitherto not too familiar tribes, a unanimous decision was worked out at long last. And after protracted negotiations with the Government of India, the 16-Point Agreement was signed in 1960 and the State of Nagaland born in 1963.

Covenant to end a war
This Agreement is a remarkable document and it was the first of its kind signed by the Government of India with any section of its people. Nagaland is the only State born out of an agreement. This is indeed remarkable in the days when Delhi followed an iron-hand policy as far as integration of the country was concerned. Statehood of Nagaland was the amalgamation of the aspirations of the people especially their aspirations to live in peace, normalcy and prosperity. It was a covenant without a battle to end a senseless war, and credit must go to the Naga leaders who had the rational desire and human instinct to escape from the senseless conditions of war that prevailed at that point of time. And it gave the Nagas worth and significance in the eyes of the world.

Statehood-bedrock of Naga society
Statehood also gave the Nagas a sense of unity, identity and political entity for the very first time. Tuensang and Mon areas were merged with the new State and the representatives of these areas were represented for the first time in policy-making for the development of the people. It established parliamentary democracy in our society and ensured that the destiny of the Nagas would be decided and charted by the Nagas themselves and not by someone alien to their ways of life. At the same time, recognising the need to preserve our culture, traditions and customary laws, a special provision was added to the Constitution of India. Article 371 A of the Constitution gaurantees that, unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland so decides, no Act of the Indian Parliament would apply to the State of Nagaland in respect of

i) religious and social Practices of the Nagas
ii) Naga customary laws and procedures
iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary laws and
iv) ownership and transfer of land and its resources.

In all respects, this is no mean achievement. But it is easy to belittle these achievements today and cast unwanted and unfair aspersions on the leaders who made it possible. It is also easy to sit in the comforts of one's home, enjoy the fruits of Statehood and make unfair comments, forgetting all the trials and tribulations that went into giving the Nagas an honourable place in the Indian Union.

37 years of Statehood
It has indeed, been a long and winding road for the Nagas in the last 37 years od Statehood. But nevertheless, we have come far and we have reasons to boast of our achievements.

In 1963, the population of the State stood at 3.69 lakh out of whom barely 18% or sixty-six thousand people were literate. There was not a single college in the whole State and there were only two Government High Schools, 11 middle schools and 180 primary schools.There were only two civil hospitals and a handful of smaller hospitals and dispensaries in some few places.Basic amenities such as water and electric supply were non-existent. Black-topped roads stretched for hardly 168 kilometres and the remaining roads barely reached a few administrative headquarters. The total fund allocation for the entire Naga Hills Tuensang Area in 1963 amounted to a paltry Rs 3.88 crore with a few hundred Government servants running the affairs of the State Government.

The State Legislative Assembly has voted a budget of Rs 1,725 crore for the year 2000-2001. And this directly reflects on the amount of investment and the degree of development the people of Nagaland has made in the last three-plus decades. Houses even in the remotest areas have CGI roofings with roads leading to them. Schools, play grounds, electricity and health care facilities have been provided to one and all. Our literacy rate stands at 83% ranking among the highest in the whole country. Above all, we have our own elected legislators and about a lakh of government servants to run the government thereby enabling us to determine our own destiny.

Criminalisation of the Cause
What has happened to the movement for independence is clearly visible today. All idealism seems to have been lost and the goals for which thousands suffered and sacrificed their lives appear to have been completely forgotten. The movement has now degenerated into sheer terrorism with killing of innocents, extortion, looting, intimidation and threats becoming the order of the day. Gun culture is all pervading and the price for dissent is death. People are afraid to express their opinions, and the straight-forwardness that characterised Naga society appears to have vanished. Leaders who head the movement now do not seem to have the vision, the wisdom, the democratic credentials and the compassion that are required to lead a people and run a nation. They impose their decisions through threat. They do not command respect - they demand it from the people at gun point.

What was once a movement of the people by the people for the people, is now reduced to meaningless terrorism with the so-called national workers embarking on a spree of extortion and self-agrandisement. A movement which once had volunteers sacrificing their everything is now reduced to goondaism. This is amply shown by the fact that cadres of the different factions of the underground go around villages demanding that they should be fed and supplied with rations and money, as if the villagers owe them.

In other words, the movement initiated and nurtured by the people has gone against the same people, and those criminalising the once noble movement force themselves to believe, or suffer from delusions, that they have the sympathy of the public.The recent resolution of the village representatives from the 1068 villages at the VDB Conference speaks volumes about the attitude of the people towards violence.

Modern concept of Sovereignty
Apart from this, we also must be practical enough to realise that independence is not some magic wand that would solve all our problems at one stroke. The world has changed, and national boundaries and territorial sovereignty have little meaning today. Small, under developed and economically poor nations have no future in a world that is increasingly driven by market economy. Inter-dependence has replaced independence as the means to prosperity and economics is the real politics of today. The modern concept of sovereignty is based on economic sovereignty, and not political sovereignty as in the past. The European Union is a prime example. A number of countries have formed the Union to have a common currency and maximise their economic interests. They have abolished all trade, citizenship and commercial barriers among their respective nations. The main reason why nations should merge is that people want prosperity, a better life and rapid economic progress. They do not want to isolate themselves, nor do they want to strive in vain or live in poverty.

Naga Independence A Hypothesis
These are the trends that are dominating the global scenario today and it would be naïve and self-defeating to ignore these developments sweeping across nations the world over.

In this background, let us seriously introspect on whether Nagaland can survive as an independent nation. There are people who argue that even without a historical legacy, the Nagas must struggle for independence. Under the label of 'scholars' and 'thinkers' there are some busy-bodies who strongly advocate that Nagas are not Indians and that Nagaland is not a part of India. For the sake of academic discussion, let us for a moment agree that Nagas must struggle for sovereignty or independence. Now the question arises- how do we establish an independent Nagaland and run this nation? First and foremost, as an independent country we should be able to stand on our own legs. Are we in a position to do so? Where do we find the resources to manage the manifold and complex activities that are essential for even the smallest nation? Let us take just a few examples of what an independent, country requires:

• Resources to run the Government, General Administration, Judiciary, Police, Civic Services etc.
• Establishing and finding resources for a standing Army, Air Force and other Defence related expenditure.
• Providing education, health care, power, water supply and numerous other developmental activities for the people. (Despite being a small State we have over 60 Departments presently and would need many more as an independent nation.)
• Establishing diplomatic missions, at least with major countries, and expenditure on UNO member-ship etc.
• Finding avenues for employment for our educated youth within the nation, since many avenues that exist at present would not be available.
• Establishing our own Air and Rail services, Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services, Customs and Excise machinery, Banking services, Currency and Coinage, Industries etc.

The list is endless and could go on and on, but the general picture is obvious. Do we have the resources, the expertise, the professional and technical competence and the machinery to do all this? It is easy to be idealistic and be swayed by wild promises; it is difficult to face hard facts. For instance, in 1999-2000, the budget of Nagaland State was about Rs.1256 crore. Out of this, as much as Rs.1078 crore (86%) came as grants or loans from the Central Government and financial institutions and about Rs. 92 crore from GPF subscriptions of Government employees and recovery of loans. What was our own contribution? The internal revenue generated by the State was as little as Rs. 86 crore (6.8%). Again, much of this accrued as taxes from traders belonging to other parts of the country, which would not be available after independence. Obviously, all grants and loans from India would automatically cease if we became independent. What sort of an economy would we have to sustain a nation? Surely it cannot be an economy built out of extortion. If taxes are to be levied, where is the income for this?

It is clear that ours would be a bankrupt and insolvent country and the people would not be able to survive. The plain truth is that without economic strength, no nation can survive as an independent entity.

Nagas can do without that bloody sovereignty if it means pulling the society back by hundreds, if not thousands of years in terms of social evolution. Let us not march backwards but forward alongwith the rest of the world.

The Last Word
Statehood fulfilled the aspirations of the Nagas to a large extent: The identity of the Nagas had been preserved as desired by Naga leaders ever since the feeling of Naga-oneness began. A special provision in the Constitution of India guarantees the protection of the religion, culture and traditions of the Nagas as well as their land and its resources. The 16-Point Agreement was not drafted by blind persons and signed blindly. Every clause was carefully considered and finalised after extensive consultations and with the interests of the Nagas in mind. The leaders of the Naga People's Convention were genuine patriots who fervently desired a bright future for the people. They were practical and realistic and knew that dreams alone cannot provide bread and butter to the people. They were also true democrats. They did not believe in violence, killings and coercion as the means to settle problems. It would be extremely uncharitable and petty to denigrate them and what they did for the Nagas. 'They need our whole hearted gratitude. All of us need to seriously consider these issues before jumping to hasty and wrong conclusions.

We have a new millennium ahead of us. We have no choice but to look forward, evolving new ideas on how to survive and exist as a people in the next millenium. The Future is the theme, not the past. We cannot now afford to live in the myths of the past. Are we going to prepare to face the challenges of the future in order to survive, or will we live only in the dreams of the past by which we will surely perish. We also have to be in consonance with the historical processes that are emerging and are likely to govern the world society.

Published by the Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee (I)

Share

Blogger Widgets