By Abraham Lotha
The assembly of about 50,000 people at the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) Meeting on February 29 at the Agri Expo Centre, Dimapur, is perhaps the largest gathering in Naga political history so far. The dust has settled, the chairs have been folded up, the stage dismantled, and light showers have come and washed away the footprints of the gathering. A section of the media was very optimistic when it claimed that “the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are falling into place and we are almost there.” Commentators such as T Solo described the gathering as “dark clouds and thunderstorms but little rain.” Other words of appreciation have been articulated. Now is the time for reflection and analysis.
So, did the 50,000 people who attended the FNR meeting come to pray or to be preyed upon?
The purpose of the meeting, from the FNR emails and press releases, was twofold: one, “to report to the Naga people the status of Naga Reconciliation,” and two, an invitation to the underground leaders “to stand before the Naga people and share their views on Reconciliation and their vision on a shared Naga future.” For the most part, the meeting was focused. Messages from the civil society such as Naga Hoho, United Naga Council, Dimapur Naga Council, Naga Mothers Association, and from Naga elders such as Niketu Iralu, Hokishe Yepthomi were all in unison for reconciliation as a forward and upward way. True to form the FNR Meeting on Feb 29th was a report card. The FNR deserves credit for its relentless effort and commitment to reconciliation. Firstly, the Forum has made huge efforts to bring people and groups on common discussion platforms to allow them to speak their minds in a spirit of mutual respect, leading to forgiveness and reconciliation. Secondly, as recently as in 2008 and 2009, underground members were dying like the Dimapur flies, but the activities of the FNR resulted in a decrease in factional killings. We have to be thankful to the FNR for saving the lives of many Naga youth, underground and over-ground.
Thirdly, the fact that at least the leaders of three factions shared a stage without fighting is noteworthy. It was encouraging to see the faction leaders praying together. This is a big step in the right direction from Isak’s and Muivah’s earlier stance: “Reconciliation in Christ is possible but politically, [it is] not possible. How can we stoop down so low?”
Fourthly, an attendance of 50,000 strong was a thumping response by the Naga public in support of the FNR. The Naga public has been largely appreciative of the FNR’s initiatives and the Forum did right by being accountable to the Naga people. But a word of caution here! The FNR is confusing the people with too many slogans – “Covenant of Reconciliation,” the “Naga Concordant,” the “Journey of Common Hope,”- which are beginning to sound like the names of the trivial factions. Actual reconciliation is more important than slogans. As Niketu Iralu said, “There is no room for righteousness.” It is only when “our leaders sit down together and discuss the precise terms and conditions to negotiate with the GoI for settlement,” that the Nagas will really unite.
The huge gathering of Feb 29th was also an expression of people’s yearnings and hopes. One cannot afford to miss the heartbeat of such hunger and expectations. The underground groups believe that a parallel government would come into effect from 2012 and are already talking about sitting on the right and sitting on the left of the powers-that-be. In contrast, the 50,000 people in the meeting came not just to witness the underground leaders on one stage; they, came with expectations for post reconciliation negotiations with the Government of India. In effect, the people were a step ahead of the factions and the FNR. In spite of the monumental efforts by the FNR, the factions splintered during the past two years. The plain truth is that Naga people are unsure of what sort of negotiations are taking place.
In terms of content, Isak Swu’s statement regarding negotiations and settlement “outside the box by walking [an] extra mile” did not go beyond religious platitudes. So also was Singnya’s plea for “Mon milaikina koribi.” Vero was at least humble enough to ask for forgiveness from the people and promised cooperation with the Naga concordant for the formation of one government.
Muivah remained his self righteous self insofar as reconciliation is concerned. The only way out for the Nagas, according to Muivah, is to do what God desires; true reconciliation will only be possible if it is done in the name of Christ and not in the name of some human persons or factions. The basic problem with Muivah’s premise is that he sees the IM leadership as the ‘forgiver’ and not ‘one-to-be forgiven.’ Muivah believes the solution to the Naga conflict must be unique “based on uniqueness of Naga history.” But in the context of the present impasse in the negotiations considering India’s problem, the option for the Nagas, according to Muivah, is to “Confess our sins to God, then God will open the way.” What Nagas must do, then, is to take a “decision to do what God wants.” The circularity of this reasoning allows no exit from the present impasse.
Kitovi and Khole on the other hand, called for a rational, realistic and practical approach to the Naga problem. For Khole, “As the alternative political arrangement is the ultimate desire of the Nagas living in the present state of Manipur, there is no reason why the Nagas living in present state of Nagaland, Assam or Arunachal Pradesh should oppose such a concept.” It is not surprising, then, that the ENPO President, Pongom Khiamniungan, sought support for their demand for a separate state of Frontier Nagaland in contradiction to the reconciliatory mood of the day. Khole also reinforced Muivah’s statement that in the present international context, integration of Naga inhabited areas in India and Myanmar or independence of Nagas is not possible. Khole observes that in rethinking strategies based on a rational, practical and realistic approach for future political arrangement, “the greatest asset that we can pass on to future Naga generations cohabiting with neighboring nations and peoples is the emotional, social and cultural integration and inter-dependence among the Nagas.” Accordingly, Khole earnestly appeals to the Naga organizations to choose to remain pan-Naga emotionally, culturally, socially and spiritually in future endeavours. One concludes that Khole and Kitovi have totally surrendered to the Indian position. What is the use of continuing the struggle then?
The attitude of the undergrounds however remains unchanged. The demand for reduction of taxes by the Naga Hoho and Dimapur Naga Council’s plea for ‘One people, one government, one tax’ went unanswered. Secondly, despite repeated requests by the MC to limit the speeches to 3 minutes and 7 minutes by the NGOs and underground representatives respectively, Muivah took twice the time allotted and even got up to speak for a second time. Kitovi not only exceeded the time limit; he even asked for more time. Such behaviour indicates that the underground players want to talk but not to listen to the voice of the people.
There was also a certain sense of self-deception in the many articulations of “sovereignty lies with the people,” as stated by Wati Aier whose stance that “the recognition of our uniqueness (by India), means our sovereignty is recognized.” Incidentally, Isak’s speech about the need for reconciliation and the sovereign will of the people was drowned out by the noise of the helicopter (unconfirmed sources said it was an Indian Army helicopter from Ranga Pahar) that hovered over the gathering twice during Isak’s speech, illustrating a classic case of insensitivity and arrogance and the might of the state. Ideally yes, popular sovereignty should by definition lie with the people, but if that were true in the Nagas’ case, then why are we having reconciliation meetings and still engaged in political negotiations with India?
The recommendation by the FNR for the formation of an “expert group to consult, provide and ensure all intellectual, spiritual, logistic and technical expertise,” though directed to the next step of the Covenant of Common Hope, needs serious thinking. It is here that the FNR falls short because it is stuck with the idea of the Covenant of Common Journey confined to the undergrounds alone. It is short-sighted because the ‘common’ journey is not only for the underground factions. It is for every Naga. The Naga people now believe that the task of negotiating with India should be handled by an Expert Group inclusive of the undergrounds, civil society, Nagaland government, and intellectuals. The undergrounds alone cannot do it. The underground groups cannot arrogate to themselves the will and vision of the Naga people.
An editorial in an English daily suggested “it is extremely important for the FNR to remain in control of the process until such time that Naga reconciliation can move to the next stage of a truly inclusive and common platform of our national groups.” Incidentally, in 2009, a suggestion by the Naga people for the formation of a Common Platform inclusive of the undergrounds, civil society, politicians and intellectuals was rejected by the FNR as well as undergrounds. Perhaps the need of the hour at that time was reconciliation and, may be, the time for a Common Platform was not ripe then. But now that we have reached this stage, it is time to move on and listen to the collective wisdom of the people. The struggle for the Naga nation is about creating a better future for the Nagas whether within or outside the Indian state.