Between the lines
In Phizo's footsteps
I believe even the views of Nagas's Gandhi, AZ Phizo, had undergone a change some time before he died in London in 1990 -- I was then India's High Commissioner to the UK. Phizo told his old comrade-in-arms, Khodao-Yanthan, who was working with him in London, that he wanted to advise his old friends to give up violence and seek a solution within the framework of a united India...I proposed that the government leaders should meet Khodao-Yanthan, who was going on his own to Kohima, via Delhi. But the day he reached Delhi, the VP Singh government fell. It was one of those unfortunate quirks of fate. His successor showed no interest in the matter.
THE Nagas, living in the northeast of India, have seldom captured the country's attention. Whenever they have, it is either a clash between the underground among them and the armed forces or sporadic incidents of violence. For an ordinary Indian, it is disturbed, unfamiliar area which is far away. Like Kashmir, which has article 370 for a special status, Nagaland has it under Article 371 (a), the Nagaland assembly is supreme and no parliament act can apply in matters of religious practices, customary laws and ownership or transfer of land and its resources. The difference between the two states is that Kashmir acceded to India after the paramountcy of Britain lapsed while Nagaland was carved out from the loosely administered area under the British.
Both have the central election commission conducting the polls. Both have their state assemblies and the elected governments. People of both states are Indian citizens and carry its passport when they travel abroad. Strategically, both states are important, Nagaland having border with three countriesChina, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Even after five decades, New Delhi has not been able to establish peace either in Kashmir or Nagaland. The problem at both places is political but the government has employed the army to solve it. Its commanders themselves admit that it is not possible to establish peace without political inputs.
While Kashmir awaits the talks which the centre has promisedchief minister Mohammad Mufti gives three months as the deadlineNagaland is engaged in a parley of sorts at the highest level. The real problem is not whether anything would come out of the talks but whether New Delhi is willing to go to the extent where the intractable become malleable. Is the government willing to modify its stand that a strong centre is the answer to local or regional aspirations for identity?
The Nagas, with whom New Delhi is having talks, the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) -- Isak Swu and Muivah are the negotiatorsis satisfied that the Government of India has recognised "the unique history and situation of the Nagas." Now they want it to be spelled out. The Concerned Naga Senior Citizens (CNSC) and HOHO, an apex body, have supported the statement. They have dug out Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's letter to the then Assam chief minister Medhi: "One of their (Nagas') grievances is that under our constitution we split them up in different political areas. Whether it is possible or desirable to bring them together again is for us to consider. Also what measure of autonomy we should give them so that they can lead their own lives without any sensation of interference." This is interpreted differently by some other Naga groups, which have not accepted the two-year-old ceasefire. Their strength and that of Congress party Nagas in power in Kohima, is far less than the NSCN (IM)'s. The church is largely behind the latter.
All groups, however, support the two demands: one, the greater Nagaland that incorporates the Nagas living in Manipur, Meghalaya and Assam and, two, sovereignty. The first one, as the Nagas know, does not depend on New Delhi. The three states have to agree to give part of their territory and get a resolution to that effect passed in their respective assemblies. Then parliament has to endorse it by a two-thirds majority in both the houses. It is difficult to envisage such a resolution going through either in assemblies or in parliament.
The second demand is that of independence, which means secession. The Nagas argue that they were never part of India and, therefore, the question of secession did not arise in their case. Still the fact remains that Nagaland is a state in the Indian Union and it is listed in the schedule of the constitution. It needs no argument that such a proposition will never be acceptable to the country. Something like autonomy may be readily acceptable. To use the words of former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, "The sky is the limit." True, he said so in the context of Kashmir. But it can well apply to the Nagas. They should try to have it as soon as possible. For the Hidutva elements may give the whole thing a religious colouring since more than the 90 per cent of the population in Nagaland is Christian. The possibility cannot be ruled out.
I believe even the views of Nagas's Gandhi, AZ Phizo, had undergone a change some time before he died in London in 1990 -- I was then India's High Commissioner to the UK. Phizo told his old comrade-in-arms, Khodao-Yanthan, who was working with him in London, that he wanted to advise his old friends to give up violence and seek a solution within the framework of a united India. Khodao-Yanthan said that "Phizo had changed" and that he wanted to settle the Nagaland question with the Indian leaders. Khodao-Yanthan was insistent on describing his nationality as 'Naga' in the visa application. The consular section was inclined to reject it on the ground that India did not recognise Nagaland as a separate nation. I intervened. I thought it was important that he visit India and meet political leaders. After living in London for three decades, he had lost touch with the realities he might begin to face facts if he returned.
In fact, I sent a long telegram to New Delhi on Phizo's views. I proposed that the government leaders should meet Khodao-Yanthan, who was going on his own to Kohima, via Delhi. But the day he reached Delhi, the VP Singh government fell. It was one of those unfortunate quirks of fate. His successor showed no interest in the matter. Khodao-Yanthan, I believe, conveyed Phizo's wish to both Isak Swu and Muivah. Even though independence may not be on the agenda of the talks between New Delhi and the two Naga leaders, but the question of the quantum of autonomy is sure to come up during the parley. If so, both the Nagaland leaders and New Delhi are on the right track. Taking a leaf from the same book, the government should initiate talks with all leaders in Kashmir, whether they participated in election or not.
My recent brief visit to Pakistan convinces me that Islamabad will come round to accept whatever settlement we reach inside our side of Kashmir. The Hurriyat leaders are not facing the reality when they go on emphasising a tripartite conference of India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Maulvi Farooq is right when he says that any two can meet. But the Hurriyat should know that any solution mattered out without involving India would not be acceptable to the country.
If the Nagas can get to agree that greater Nagaland may not be feasible, why don't the valley leaders exclude Kashmir under Pakistan from their talks with New Delhi, if and when they are held? The line of control (LoC) may well be a proper line to accept because it separates the Kashmiri- speaking Kashmiris from the Punjabi-speaking Kashmiris.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments