PRESIDENT of the Naga National Council Adino Phizo has categorically said that there can be no meaningful dialogue between Nagaland and India until the “government of India rescinds the 1972 ‘illegal’ badge served on the Naga National Council and the Federal Government of Nagaland”.
In an exclusive interview with this writer from her London residence, the daughter of the late legendary Naga freedom fighter and former NNC president AZ Phizo, however, pointed out that she was yet to see any seriousness on the part of the Indian government in “seeking an honourable solution to the protracted conflict”. Excerpts:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said he desires to see a solution to the protracted Naga problem during his tenure. Union home secretary GK Pillai has said a solution to the Naga issue will be found in 12-24 months. What is your comment?
Dr Manmohan Singh is said to be sincere, a man of principle. I have no doubt the government of India at some time will wake up and evaluate India’s six decades’ of disastrous external foray into Nagaland in its own interest. The burning issue is the Indian Army’s naked aggression against Nagaland in 1954 and, ever since, the Indian Army’s unremitting occupation and militarised tyranny in Nagaland.
Obviously, there can be no meaningful dialogue until the government of India rescinds the 1972 “illegal” tag served on the Naga National Council and the Federal Government of Nagaland. Whether India is serious in seeking an honourable solution to the protracted conflict on this occasion is yet to be seen.
Yet the government of India has said the final solution to the Naga issue will come about only after holding talks with all the Naga underground groups. It has said that a solution will be found in 12-24 months. Do you think this is possible?
As a nation, Nagaland has a democratically elected constitutional government, namely the Federal Government of Nagaland. In addition, India imposed a puppet state government and also patronises the so-called NSCN to perpetrate state-sponsored terrorism in Nagaland. In all probability, the government of India will stick to protocol in the case of other nations and refrain from uttering such absurd and offensives drivel. It will not help the government of India to insult the intelligence of the Naga people.
During 1954-1963, Delhi saw no prospect of defeating the tenacious Naga patriots and the more pressing matter was the Indian military (being) on the verge of a debacle. At that juncture, under the auspices of the Nagaland Baptist Church Council, the two nations represented by the Federal Government of Nagaland and the government of India willingly entered into an international ceasefire agreement in 1964, duly signed and witnessed by an international peace mission. After the defeat of the hapless Pakistani army in then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, the Indian government couldn’t resist repeating the same in Nagaland, thus unilaterally abrogating the binding agreement and “proscribed” the NNC and FGN in 1972. Whereas the war in Nagaland refused to end, following worldwide condemnation of the “Indian Emergency” (1975) enforced by the late Indira Gandhi, evidently it was no sheer coincidence that Indian officials concocted an administrative ceasefire agreement with the Naga “underground organisation” in 1975 by circumventing respective legitimate authority and, before signing the said document, preannounced it to the world on All India Radio. Although neither did the government ever ratify the incontrovertibly flawed ceasefire, it remains operative to date!
The people of Nagaland were no strangers to a false episodic dawn in the past but they again wonder, on this occasion, what the Indian government is up to. I suspect the world, too, is curious.
NSCN(IM) general secretary Th Muivah, after recent talks with Dr Manmohan Singh, Union home minister P Chidambaram and newly appointed interlocutor RS Pandey in Delhi, said Indian leaders were serious this time about solving the Naga issue. Do you believe what he said? In the affairs of Nagaland, Th Muivah is a non-entity. He is from Ukhrul district in Manipur and has no political roots in Nagaland. Only after the 1964 ceasefire agreement, the NNC and FGN advanced in dispensing with the hitherto Inner Line Permit, mandatory for Naga families in Naga-inhabited areas to enter Nagaland. While the national status of Naga-inhabited areas is yet to be settled, it does not help that a section of Naga people can clearly be seen to be politicising the issue and callously inflaming the age-old friendship with neighbouring people.
On the question of the so-called NSCN(IM), its bloodthirsty origin in 1979-80 and its persistent lies and hatred campaign to subvert the Yehzabo (constitution) of Nagaland has been a hideous distraction, but it has in no way deflected the unshakable resolve of the NNC and FGN on Naga sovereignty. Over the past three decades, the people of Nagaland have endured extreme violence at the hands of the outfit, generally called tormentors.
Without the Indian government’s patronage, the so-called NSCN(IM) would not dare make outrageous claims against the NNC and FGN, let alone venture out. The fact that it requires “designated camps” nearby Indian Army occupation, “Z+security”, Indian passports and “IDs” from its supposed-to-be-enemy to go about needs no further comment. It is surprising that the Indian government has resorted to dallying with a stage-managed non-state vassal supplicant calling itself “Nagalim”, currently devoid of a domain and history.
New Delhi has categorically stated that Naga sovereignty or Naga integration is out of question. Yet it said it would give more autonomy to the Nagas. Do you think greater autonomy would solve the longstanding Naga issue?
Nagaland and India have never ever shared a common history. Before the Union of India came into existence in 1947, Naga representatives led by AZ Phizo had a series of meetings with emerging leaders of India, in Assam and elsewhere, to establish good understanding between the two peoples, particularly on future bilateral relations. Mahatma Gandhi, Gopinath Bordoloi, MA Jinnah, Rajagopalachari, etc, with no exception, respected the desire of the Naga people to remain a sovereign country. As planned, the Naga representatives declared to the world that Nagaland would be independent on 14 August 1947, a day ahead of the Union of India’s declaration of independence.
In recognition of Naga sovereignty, over the years Indian leaders have invited the NNC to join the Union of India, to be incorporated in the Constitution of India, offered “special status within India”, blank cheques for the development of Nagaland, become a President of India, an ambassador to a named country and so on. It may sound unwise to have refused such seemingly generous proposals, but India has no monopoly on sovereignty over another nation. It was not because of any political demand or dispute that the Indian Army displayed a massive show of strength and invaded Nagaland in 1954. The NNC stand on relations with India is, and always has been, peaceful coexistence based on mutual respect.
What is your concept of sovereignty at this juncture because RS Pandey, a former chief secretary of Nagaland, told me that India had “shared sovereignties with states”. He said the lists in the Centre’s domain could be transferred to states’ lists. Are you still for “Naga sovereignty”?
I see no evidence of RS Pandey’s idea of “shared sovereignty” that India is willing to enter into with a neighbouring country. He better confine his fantasy to himself and stick to a role he is good at, if any.
Sovereignty is the pivotal attribute of a nation-state. From the outset, the Father of the Naga nation was unequivocal on Naga sovereignty. In brief, the right of Nagaland to maintain its own territorial integrity and internal system.
Muivah, while addressing the 30th Naga Republic Day at their Hebron camp, said they would stand on the foundation and decision of the erstwhile Naga National Council leaders, namely AZ Phizo, founder of the NNC, Kughato Sukhai, former Ato Kilonser of the NNC, Inkongmeren Ao, T Sakhrie and Khodao Yanthan. He also said they were around today because of them. How do you see it?
I have documentary evidence of the so-called NSCN(IM) manifesto, various vacuous statements, atrocity reports, crimes against the Naga people and others, and the proposed basis for discussion to achieve a comprehensive solution to the Naga issue. Far from paying normal respects to and appreciation for the sacrifices of NNC and FGN leaders for the Naga nation, Muivah and his henchmen went to great lengths to fabricate Nagaland’s history. Whatever he has said of late, I don’t think a right-minded Naga will believe him.
The NNC keeps abreast of developments concerning Nagaland and, on the recent Delhi orchestrated “peace process” with a non-state actor, sees no likely impact on Nagaland. The “secret” cosmetic changes demanded by the so-called NSCN(IM) within Article 371A (13th Amendment Act, 1962) in return for symbiotic “competencies” and a “sovereign” relation within the Indian Union should be made public. In this connection, under the caption “Conditioning & clearing the ground towards settlement”, I quote, “The Constitution of NIA is to effectively marginalise and nullify the armed conflict in the region and to silence other factions.
“NIA is an effort from the Naga people to resolve their issues within the framework of the Indian Union and at the same time restore the goodwill and peace with other states.
“NIA will give a structured political system for the Union of India to settle the issues. The age of confrontation comes to an end.”
The NNC does not comment on what clearly is a desperate Indian government project and is of no relevance to Nagaland sovereignty. Nagaland will not be party to a political game.
Has New Delhi tried to contact you for talks?
The NNC maintains a channel of communication with the Indian government through informal contacts. The former knows the NNC stand and I am aware of Delhi’s stance on Nagaland. I can say that there is no indication of Delhi looking at the Nagaland agenda sooner. I am not surprised that a circle of bureaucrats and consultants in Delhi with vested interests in Nagaland is said to influence the Indian government’s policy towards Nagaland.
Do you think the current Nagaland government led by Neiphiu Rio is sincere about finding a Naga solution?
The imposed puppet state government in Nagaland is symptomatic of the Indian government’s hypocrisy. Rio happens to be the present puppet chief minister. No Naga is a stranger to one another, on the social level we have a polite tradition.
Rio and his colleagues talk much about playing a constructive role as facilitators to bring “an honourable solution” to the protracted conflict with India, but I am yet to see any action to that effect.
What is the overall stand of the NNC on the Naga issue and how would you approach it if you are invited for talks?
The NNC is not a political party. It is the embodiment of the Naga body politic with historical moorings in Naga democratic tradition. By virtue of the historic 16 May 1951 universal Naga consensus to opt for a common Naga identity and affirmation of the heretofore Nagaland declaration to stay independent on 14 August 1947, immutably entrusted with the NNC, no Naga can deny the NNC mandate. As the keeper of the soul of the Naga nation, the NNC has the final say on war and peace.
Nagaland was a peaceful, self-sufficient and hospitable country before the Indian invasion in 1954. Is it not ironic that after six decades of unremitting Indian Army occupation and tyranny in Nagaland, Indian politicians and officials constantly lecture peace to the Naga people?
I will tell India, let us reason and go forward. It is in India’s interest to withdraw the Army and its camp followers from Nagaland to remove the fundamental cause of the conflict. Let peace prevail.
The interviewer is editor of North-East Herald