[Previous entry: "Naga talks: Govt taking closer look at accords Nirendra Dev The Statesman"] [Next entry: "No one is allowed to mislead Sumi people again Tokiho Morungexpress"]

10/30/2008: "Muivah on the Naga Issue – An Unpublished Interview: by Subir Gosh"

Muivah on the Naga Issue – An Unpublished Interview: I

• Date: August 11, 2008 • Reports - Editorials: Northeast Those days to get even a quote, leave alone a full-fledged interview, from National socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) leaders was extremely difficult. I had a quote from NSCN chairman Isak Chishi Swu on the Indo-Naga ceasefire agreement, even before Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda announced it in New Delhi in the autumn of 1997.
Muivah and Swu
Thuingaleng Muivah (left) and Isak Chishi Swu at a meeting of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) at the Hague, the Netherlands, in the early 1990s. Photo © National Socialist Council of Nagalim

I filed a story but it was spiked by the man of the moment at the 'Telegraph', Deputy Editor Dipayan Chatterjee. The story lacked "credibility" or so I was given to understand. The paper, however, carried the New Delhi version of the report. So much for balanced reporting. I have since learned that the Indian Press talks of balanced reporting only when it suits them. But I refused to give up.

Sitting there in Calcutta, I was once again in December 1997 able to establish contact with NSCN general secretary, Thuingaleng Muivah. What resulted was a lengthy interview wherein he spoke on the A to Z of the Naga issue. He did not speak literally, but took the trouble of having the entire thing typed out and faxed to me. My newspaper, once again, refused to carry it on the pretext that the interview meant nothing. I really hate to give up without a fight.

So I went upstairs (literally) to 'Sunday'. They happily agreed to carry a truncated version, but that was because they had space problem. 'Sunday' was then (January 1998) in its last stages, and the editor was Vir Sanghvi. This move may have been a bad one, going by the scowls that were I was made to see by 'seniors' at the paper. After that all my stories at the 'Telegraph' were spiked without any reason even being given to me.
It has been a long time since then. But Muivah's views on the Naga issue remain as valid and important. I am serialising here the interview in three parts.

Subir Ghosh: The birth of Naga nationalism is seen by many as the submision of a memorandum to the Simon Commission in 1929. Do you agree that the formation of the Naga Club was the first concrete step towards Naga nationalism?

Thuingaleng Muivah: It would be a serious mistake if one thinks that the submission of a memorandum to the Simon Commission in 1929 was the birth of Naga nationalism. The Nagas' history did not start with this incident. Alien forces in the past had met with stiff resistance from the Nagas – the Shans from the east and the Ahoms from the west, prior to the British intrusion into Nagaland. The British sufered many setbacks from the resistance put up by the Nagas. All these acts actuated from the love of their country. Indeed, Nagas were zealous of their homeland. The formation of the Naga Club and the submission of the memorandum to the Simon Commission are, of course, historic in that the Naga Club officially repreented the Nagas and the memorandum expressed the national aspiration of the Nagas as a whole.

Subir Ghosh: The death of Theyieu Sakhrie has been decribed time and again as the greatest tragedy of the Naga political movement. Would you agree that the Phizo-Sakhrie divide was the first sign of disunity in the Naga political movement?
Thuingaleng Muivah: T Sakhrie was a man of great intellect. We lost in him that which we cannot afford to lose. But, to safeguard the cause is supreme. The path a nation has to tread cannot be deviated on whatever account and Sakhrie became a victim of it. Phizo upheld the national commitment. We are grateful he did the right thing at the right time. Therefore, it is not a disunity question as such among the people, but blacksliding of a few, unfortunately headed by Sakhrie.

Subir Ghosh: Nothing happened to the Nine-Point Agreement. Significantly, the text of the agreement published by the Naga National Council (NNC) and that kept in the official Indian records are differently worded. Do you think Hydari was sincere about the 10-year clause?

Thuingaleng Muivah: It was simply a shame on the part of any Indian leadership to attempt to fabricate their own commitment. The failure to face the reality is what caused the conflict between the Indian government and the Nagas. It is impossible to believe that there is any discrepancy in the wording in the text of the agreement. Heaven forbid that cheating is done between nations. Sir Hydari was not at all sincere. He was prone to imposing his will by fair means or foul. His attempt to deviate and obscure his commitment gave rise to the scepticism of the Nagas towards Indians. It was none other than Sir Hydari that signed the Nine-Point Agreement officially, formally, and then after a few days flatly denied it saying that there was no agreement as such. What a lie! A man of such standard triggered off the sanguinary confrontation of the last fifty years.

SC Jamir
Muivah: SC Jamir (pictured here) has done all he could killing the Nagas over the last four decades for implementing the so-called Sixteen-Point Agreement. But paradoxically, the Indian government now realised the hopelessness of harping on it for a solution. Though belatedly, the futility of any backdoor agreement has been perceived in the course of the confrontation – the reality that the issue is with the people also established. The ultimate wishes of a people cannot be decided through suppression. Jamir knows this. Actions are counter-productive, and that is apparent to his government. Photo © Subir Ghosh

Subir Ghosh: It is still being said by many people that the 1951 plebiscite was rigged, that it was a farce. Do you agree? Could you elaborate?

Thuingaleng Muivah: The plebiscite of 1951 is genuine and most democratic. There is absolutely no question of it being rigged. Indian authorities were invited to witness the holding of the plebiscite, though they failed to turn up. There was no controversy whatsoever over it among the Naga people. It ws not rigged. India has distorted and denied historical facts of the rights ofthe Nagas including the validity of the 1951 plebiscite. They have also reeneged on their own commitments. Such a standard approach to the issue of this importance has wrought a heavy cost in the last 50 years.

Subir Ghosh: The formation of the Naga People's Convention in 1957 was the first sign that the Nagas were divided into two groups: overground and underground. Was this significant?

Thuingaleng Muivah: The name 'People's Convention' was given in 1957 by the Indian government to divide the Nagas by using some Naga officials who were in the pay of the Indian government. They did not represent the Naga people. Therefore, it did not represent either the underground or the overground, as you call them. The Sixteen-Point Agreement in 1963 between these Indian-sponsored groups and the Indian government solved nothing of the issue. Thus, it is not significant. On the contrary, the Indian government is belatedly seeking a solution through the NSCN and the process is under way.

Subir Ghosh: SC Jamir still talks about the implementation of the Sixteen-Point Agreement. What is your assessment about both the agreement as well as Jamir using this issue to score a point over his political opponents? How did the granting of statehood affect the Naga issue?

Thuingaleng Muivah: SC Jamir has done all he could killing the Nagas over the last four decades for implementing the so-called Sixteen-Point Agreement. But paradoxically, the Indian government now realised the hopelessness of harping on it for a solution. Though belatedly, the futility of any backdoor agreement has been perceived in the course of the confrontation – the reality that the issue is with the people also established. The ultimate wishes of a people cannot be decided through suppression. Jamir knows this. Actions are counter-productive, and that is apparent to his government.

Subir Ghosh: Why did the Ceasefire Agreement fail? Was it because of the Government or the Army? Why did the ministerial talks of tthe Sixties fail? Was it because Indira Gandhi was supposed to be very arrogant with the Nagas?

Thuingaleng Muivah: The Ceasefire Agreement of 1964 was bound to fail because –in the first place, neither the Indian government nor its Army honoured the terms of the agreement. They just rode roughshod over their own commitment. On part of the Federal Government of Nagaland, too, seriousness to honour the terms was lacking although the Indian side was much more wanting. Thus, it was to end up in charges and counter-charges. Secondly, both the parties were not sufficiently disposed to understand each other's difficulties. Thirdly, appreciation for each other's problems was almost nil. Next, there was no courage from either side to come forward with points for starting the real negotiations. Lastly, Mrs (Indira) Gandhi took advantage of a rift that had cropped up among us in the latter part of the talks, unilaterally abrogated the Ceasefire Agreement and declared President's Rule. The Peace Mission was dismissed, Rev Michael Scott was expelled, and Jayaprakash Narayan's arrest was demanded in the Indian Parliament for making a proposal. (Bimala Prasad) Chaliha was forced to resign. All these things were done without the consultation of the Naga government.



Scato Swu
Scato Swu speaking at the surrendering ceremony of his Revolutionary Government of Nagaland at Zunheboto in 1973. According to Muivah, the 'Revolutionary Government of Nagaland' surendered, but without entering into any official agreement. Of course, the Shillong Accord is the Shillong Accord. "These two types of surrenders were not signs that people did not want to carry on the armed resistance, nor were they signs of disagreement on armed resistance. They were misled by a few elements in their leadership."

Subir Ghosh: The failure of the talks in the Sixties had a fallout on the Naga issue. Was not the parting of ways with Kaito Sema, Kughato Sukhai, Scato Swu and others tragic?

Thuingaleng Muivah: Yes, the failure of the talks in the Sixties had a fallout on the Naga issue, though it did not influence its course. Yes, the parting of ways with General Kaito, Scato Swu etc was tragic.

Subir Ghosh: We saw two abject surrenders. First by the Revolutionary Government of Nagaland in 1973 and that infamous Shillong Accord two years later. Would you say that both these incidents showed that there were many in the underground movement who did not want to carry on an armed struggle for independence for long? Were not these signs that the movement was full of people who disagreed for long?

Thuingaleng Muivah: The 'Revolutionary Government of Nagaland' surendered, but without entering into any official agreement. Of course, the Shillong Accord is the Shillong Accord. These two types of surrenders were not signs that people did not want to carry on the armed resistance, nor were they signs of disagreement on armed resistance. They were misled by a few elements in their leadership.
Muivah on the Naga Issue – An Unpublished Interview: II
Those days to get even a quote, leave alone a full-fledged interview, from National socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) leaders was extremely difficult. I had a quote from NSCN chairman Isak Chishi Swu on the Indo-Naga ceasefire agreement, even before Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda announced it in New Delhi in the autumn of 1997. I filed a story but it was spiked by the man of the moment at the 'Telegraph', Deputy Editor Dipayan Chatterjee.

AZ Phizo NNC leader Angami Zapu Phizo. Photo © Naga National Council (NNC)

The story lacked "credibility" or so I was given to understand. The paper, however, carried the New Delhi version of the report. So much for balanced reporting. I have since learned that the Indian Press talks of balanced reporting only when it suits them. But I refused to give up.

Sitting there in Calcutta, I was once again in December 1997 able to establish contact with NSCN general secretary, Thuingaleng Muivah. What resulted was a lengthy interview wherein he spoke on the A to Z of the Naga issue. He did not speak literally, but took the trouble of having the entire thing typed out and faxed to me. My newspaper, once again, refused to carry it on the pretext that the interview meant nothing. I really hate to give up without a fight.

So I went upstairs (literally) to 'Sunday'. They happily agreed to carry a truncated version, but that was because they had space problem. 'Sunday' was then (January 1998) in its last stages, and the editor was Vir Sanghvi. This move may have been a bad one, going by the scowls that were I was made to see by 'seniors' at the paper. After that all my stories at the 'Telegraph' were spiked without any reason even being given to me.
It has been a long time since then. But Muivah's views on the Naga issue remain as valid and important. I am serialising here the interview in three parts.

Subir Ghosh: The issue of issue of unity among the Nagas is one of the most written-about subjects. I have raised the issue of the surrenders in 1973 and 1975. Then there was the Phizo-Sakhrie conflict. Do you think such dissension has affected the Naga cause?

Thuingaleng Muivah: The question of unity is everywhere in all struggles. It is unavoidable. We believe in revolutionary philosophy. It is through contradictions that the realities are revealed and straightened out. It is not peculiar to the Nagas. Certainly, it affected the flow of the progress, but did not hinder the course of the cause. We are a people committed to national principles. We do not compromise on the issue of principles. In other words, we have no passion for unprincipled unity or peace. It does not serve the purpose even tactically and strategically. Phoney unity is always fraught with the danger of worse consequences. It is most foolish to put incompatible things together. Unity must be sought on a correct basis; peace must be founded on correct grounds. Otherwise, everything is a sham. A national goal cannot be achieved through a fluke: it demands genuine sacrifice.

Subir Ghosh: Then there is the question about tribal unity. Going by reports, one finds that the Nagas are divided along tribal lines when it comes to your organisation, Khaplang's faction, and the surviving Adinno group. Broadly speaking, we find the Sumis, Tangkhuls with you, the Konyaks, Aos and Angamis with Khaplang and Adinno. I repeat this is broadly speaking. As long as this continues, how do you think that unity of the people can be achieved. After all, since the goal is independence, the people will have to live unitedly once the Nagas become independent.

Thuingaleng Muivah: There was no tribalism among the Nagas until the NNC created an administrative structure along tribal lines. In the course of time, some elements of tribal interest came up. But, things were not determined along tribal lines as blown up by Indians and the puppets. We have to know that Indians and the puppets have their own interests: they play upon this stuff. But, we are sure, you will be enlightened with these two questions: (a) Is the Sixteen-Point Agreement worked out or accepted along tribal lines? (b) Is the Shillong Accord on a tribal basis? It will be too great a mistake if they are construed in terms of tribalism. The Tangkhul national workers condemned the Accord in 1976. Was it on account of their tribal interests against those of other tribes? No, not at all. They did because it was a sellout of the right of the Naga nation. We do not think either that those who failed or missed to condemn the Accord have tribal stakes in it. In most cases of confusion of conflict, it is the inability from wrong that gave the chance to people with vested interests to play their game. And, when a leader is incompatible with the sanctity of the cause he professes to serve, he becomes disgruntled and dangerous. This is the case with Khaplang. Immediately after his attempt on our lives, he started working in collaboration with the Indian forces and the puppets. Nagas are divided along these lines. Your assessment of the situation is wide off the mark. All lovers of the nation are with us because they know we are the only people genuinely representing the Naga nation. And no wonder, in this way, we have survived the 50 years of India's divide-and-rule policy. We think you will be clearer about the point if you examine the disunity among Indians – between the Hindus and the Muslims, the Brahmins and the Untouchables, the indigenous Dalits, Adivasis on one hand and the Indian ruling class on the other, between feelings of the South and the North, etc.

Naga delegation
The Naga delegation of the 1960s with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Isak Chishi Swu is the one in the glasses, second from left. Jayaprakash Narayan is on the far right.
Photo © Naga National Council (NNC)

Subir Ghosh: The NSCN is supposed to be the most disciplined militant organistions in the Northeast. What is the reason for this? We are told that the cadres of your organisation are supposed to be very ethical also? What is the clue to this? Despite these certificates of ethics, allegations too abound. For instance, there were times when Nagas never fired at unarmed security people. There have been many incidents to the contrary. Then again, there were stories that the Nagas would never shoot at Army people if they were accompanied by their wives or children. But such incidents have happened in the recent past. Why is it so?

Thuingaleng Muivah: We do not claim that the NSCN is the most disciplined. But, it is a fact that we are a committed people to a concept of life which, to our persuasion, is the best and the most practicable. This cause is more than life itself. We are opposed to the killing of innocent people, and unethical principles. However, it is a fact that some unruly elements in our ranks do act to the contrary and damage the culture of the organisation in some way or the other, despite efforts of correction. Besides, some gangs did create problems extorting things from our people in our name. We take action against such elements. With regards to your question of killing women or wives or children, we have this to say: the NSCN fears most the crime of killing the innocent, because it is a sin against humanity and God. There is nothing more fatal than the curse of God. But, one has to know that Indian armed forces have a horrible record. They run the risk of being ambushed anywhere, anytime. Under the circumstances, Indian forces should avoid taking with them their wives and children to areas where there is a risk of fighting. We do target the Indian Army and try to avoid harming innocent persons, especially women and children. Sometimes, sadly civilians do become victims of both sides.

Subir Ghosh: What do you have to say about the cultural degradation among the youth of Nagaland and Naga-inhabited areas in other states? We see so much drug abuse. Are you doing anything about it? Groups like PLA and UNLF regularly seize and burn narcotics. Drug smugglers are killed also. Are you thinking along similar lines?
Thuingaleng Muivah: Drugs are a virulent eney of the society almost anywhere in the world. The NSCN simply does not permit any form of dealing in drugs. This was so right from the start of our organisation. We have even dealt harshly with a number of drug nusinessmen. We just cannot afford to let our society and the generations to come to be eaten up by drugs. We understand that the NNC, Khaplang, Kukis and the Indian Army officers keepi trading in drugs.

Subir Ghosh: Because of the socio-cultural degradation all around, do you think the Naga youths of today are in any way less dedicated to the Naga cause compared to the youths when you were young?

Thuingaleng Muivah: Nationalism is an eternal force espite the changes taking place around the world. Naga nationalism will never die out. It is rooted all the more now. Nagas from all corners have realised the decisiveness of their being themselves. Nagas will never lack volunteers. They know this is the only path of salvation.

Sc Jamir
Former Nagaland Chief Minister Hokishe Sema, an Ao tribal chief, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and Nagaland Governor BK Nehru.
Photo © Subir Ghosh
Subir Ghosh: You have time and again tried to form common platforms with other militant organisations in the Northeast. Why has it failed? What has been your experience regarding this? You are supposed to have a common platform with the KYKL? Is it true? You are also supposed to have good relations with the ULFA. How much of its is true, especially considering the fact that that it is already a member of the IBRF of which Khaplang is also a partner? Do you think unity among all militant organisations of the region is actually a feasible proposition? Since, as it is the equations between the various organisations are not very smooth. Supposing the NDFB, ULFA, NSCN, PLA, etc all achieve independence. Would not there be a clash of interests then? I do not see the Manipur groups agreeing to give up the Naga-dominated hill areas of present-day Manipur. What do you say?

Thuingaleng Muivah: We have the United Front to fight against the common enemy. We do not seek amalgamation at the moment. We have a common platform in that we advocate one another’s cause wherever it is possible. We also have coordination among the members in certain essential areas of activities. We are gradually making headway in consolidating the Front. The KYKL has the most correct orientation for the Meiteis. In many respects we help each other and also work together. The ULFA has withdrawn from the IBRF. It is an essentail step towards better relations for them with other revolutionary groups around. All of us understand the need to pass through stages to be bound up with one another. In regard to your question about the Nagas in Manipur, we will say that the Nagas wherever we may be, will decide our future. As for people, we will want to have good and mutually beneficial relations with them.
Muivah on the Naga Issue – An Unpublished Interview: III
Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 @ 16:57:58 CDT by administrator
Those days to get even a quote, leave alone a full-fledged interview, from National socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) leaders was extremely difficult. I had a quote from NSCN chairman Isak Chishi Swu on the Indo-Naga ceasefire agreement, even before Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda announced it in New Delhi in the autumn of 1997. I filed a story but it was spiked by the man of the moment at the 'Telegraph', Deputy Editor Dipayan Chatterjee. The story lacked "credibility" or so I was given to understand.

The triumvirate
Thuingaleng Muivah, SS Khaplang and Isak Chishi Swu with an unidentified colleague in an undated photograph at an undisclosed location before the NSCN split of 1988.
Photo © National Socialist Council of Nagalim

The paper, however, carried the New Delhi version of the report. So much for balanced reporting. I have since learned that the Indian Press talks of balanced reporting only when it suits them. But I refused to give up.

Sitting there in Calcutta, I was once again in December 1997 able to establish contact with NSCN general secretary, Thuingaleng Muivah. What resulted was a lengthy interview wherein he spoke on the A to Z of the Naga issue. He did not speak literally, but took the trouble of having the entire thing typed out and faxed to me. My newspaper, once again, refused to carry it on the pretext that the interview meant nothing. I really hate to give up without a fight.

So I went upstairs (literally) to 'Sunday'. They happily agreed to carry a truncated version, but that was because they had space problem. 'Sunday' was then (January 1998) in its last stages, and the editor was Vir Sanghvi. This move may have been a bad one, going by the scowls that were I was made to see by 'seniors' at the paper. After that all my stories at the 'Telegraph' were spiked without any reason even being given to me.

It has been a long time since then. But Muivah's views on the Naga issue remain as valid and important. I am serialising here the interview in three parts.

Subir Ghosh: The Kuki-Naga clash will never end it seems. What do you think your role is in this context? What is your assessment of this issue?

Thuingaleng Muivah: The so-called Kuki-Naga clash is a pure and simple creation of the Indian government. It is an utterly miscalculated venture sincec the sole motive behind it is to make the Kukis fight against the Nagas. What a proxy war! But, expecting what? And, from whom? However, most of the Indian Press took sides with the Kukis and ran unprofessional and biased accounts of the conflict against the Nagas. Yet, in spite of this scheme of the Indian government, the NSCN never encouraged the Naga people to kill the Kukis. Were it not for the Indian government policy, Nagas and Kukis would have lived together in peace and tranquility. Now, the solution to the issue hinges on the Indian government.

Subir Ghosh: The biggest allegation against all militant organisations, inclyding the NSCN, is about extortion. What do you have to say about it? Is this ethical?

Thuingaleng Muivah: You are right that allegations of extortion are often made against us. It is not wrong altogether. Some of the unruly elements and dropouts from our ranks sometimes get out ofhand and do unwanted things. There is no dennying the fact. This is, however, against the NSCN policy. But, this is not the whole story either. The gerater fact is that gangs are also operating under the Naga Youth Liberation Front and The Ninth Brigade, organised by the puppet chief minister of Nagaland, SC Jamir. Most of the extortions are done by these gangs. These crimes are readily blamed on us. In fact, they are opposed by the NSCN. Apart from this, the Khaplang gang, solely supported by SC Jamir are carrying on extortions on a large scale. These are facts which the government of India knows well.

The memorial
The memorial says it all.
Photo © Naga National Council (NNC)

Subir Ghosh: Coming to the human rights issue. Armymen complain that whenever a suspected militant is killed, the question of human rights is raised. But whenever a securityman is killed in cold blood, nothing is said. Your comments please.

Thuingaleng Muivah: Human rights organisations deal with violations of the rights of innocent people. And, it is of no surprise to know that they fights against the atrocities committed by the armed forces of India on the innocent Naga people. How many innocent Nagas have been brutally victimised by the Indian forces on this and that unfounded killing? Killing or torture of innocent people on suspicion is opposed everywhere and this constitutes serious violation of human rights. Thus, an attempt to justify it is against humanity. Indian soldiers occupying Nagaland are killed by the Naga Army. It is Army to Army, combatant to combatant.

Subir Ghosh: What do you say about the role of organisations like the Naga Hoho summit, Naga Students Federation, Naga Mothers Association, Naga Peoples Movement for Human rights and Nagaland Baptist Church council?

Thuingaleng Muivah: Any organisation, so long as it does what it is meant for, will be beneficial to the society. But, when it betrays the principles and goes beyond, it becomes harmful. The Baptist Church leaders in the past were totally manipulated against the people and the nation. It is a pity that church leaders left behind such a trail of disgrace. A lot of Indian manipulation is also going on in the so-called Naga Hoho and, as such, they often come out holding the wrong end. We are sorry to know it. It has to prove its worth.



Khoda and Adinno
NNC Vice-President Khodao Yanthan administering the oath of office to Adinno Phizo after AZ Phizo's death. Khodao later joined the NSCN led by Swu and Muivah.
Photo © Naga National Council (NNC)

Subir Ghosh: How much are overground politicians involved with underground organisations? So much hue and cry had been raised a year or so back when it was reported that Rishang Keishing had paid Rs 25,000 to members of your organisation for help in elections. What do you have to say about it?

Thuingaleng Muivah: Puppet politicians have their own interests. We have nothing to do with them. We have received nothing from Rishang Keishing and vice versa. We do not epend on anyone except on the people and on ourselves. We go our own way: there is no meeting point.

Subir Ghosh: Is it true that SC Jamir is siding with the Khaplang men, and Keishing with your men?

Thuingaleng Muivah: We would rather treat this question as outdated. From a decade now, SC. Jamir has been fully taking sides with Khaplang with all the means at his disposal. He financed Khaplang and his group with crores of rupees, he has equipped them with sophisticated arms. He has also been actively helping them with logistics. Khaplang’s offices are functioning from the houses of the puppet ministers. All the money provided by the Indian government is divided among the ministers with Jamir taking the lion’s share. Where is the Rs 133 crore for the “peace offensive”? Howmuch has Jamir gained? How much has ended up with Khaplang?