In Phizo’s footsteps

October 10, 2017 258 Views No Comment

All groups, however, support two demands: one, a greater Nagaland incorporating the Nagas living in Manipur, Meghalaya and Assam, and, two, sovereignty. The first one, as the Nagas know, does not depend only on New Delhi. The three states have to agree to give part of their territories and get a resolution to that effect adopted in their assemblies. Then Parliament has to endorse it by a two-thirds majority in both Houses. It is difficult to envisage such a resolution going through either in the 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 does not arise. Still the fact remains that Nagaland is now a state in the Indian Union and is listed in the relevant schedule of the Constitution. It needs no argument that such a proposition will never be acceptable to the country.

Something like autonomy may be more readily acceptable. To use the words of former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao, “The sky is the limit.” True, he had said so in the context of Jammu and Kashmir. But it can well apply to the Nagas. They should try to have it as soon as possible. For the Hindutva elements may give the whole thing a religious colour as more than 90 per cent of the population in Nagaland is Christian.

I believe that even the views of the Nagas’ Gandhi, A Z Phizo, had undergone a change some time before he died in London in 1990. I was then India’s high commissioner for the United Kingdom. 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 in India, and 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 meet Khodao-Yanthan, who was going on his own to Kohima via New Delhi. But the day he reached Delhi, the V P 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, the question of the quantum of autonomy is sure to come up. 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 Jammu and Kashmir, whether they participated in the election or not. My recent brief visit to Pakistan convinces me that Islamabad will come around to accept whatever settlement we reach inside our side of Kashmir.

The Hurriyat leaders are not facing reality when they go on emphasizing a tripartite conference of India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Maulvi Umar Farooq is right when he says that any two can meet. But the Hurriyat should know that any solution hammered out without involving India would never 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 may well be a proper line to accept because it separates the Kashmiri-speaking Kashmiris from the Punjabi-speaking Kashmiris.

(This Article appeared on Jan 14 2003 courtesy Rediff.com)

Parts 1 2