[Previous entry: "Muivah under fire for ‘diluting sovereignty’"] [Next entry: "NSCN leader Muivah's Delhi visit brings hope of peace among Nagas OneIndia"]
03/09/2010: "After forced Separation Reunification is a natural desire NISC Press Release"
A Naga International Support Center, Nisc,
A human rights organization
Press Release
Mobile Office March 9 2010
After forced Separation Reunification is a natural desire
The usual protests against reunification of Naga areas and Peoples have sounded like trumpets again, see the article on the United Committee of Manipur, UCM, below. Just before that Arunachal Phradesh officials also protested against conceding any land, not an inch, to the potentially new sovereign State of Nagalim. No doubt Assam will follow suit. The protests against reunification, persistently called by the press and the Government of India integration of Naga inhabited areas, hardly ever show the substance of these protests and so the question is:
On what basis do the politicians of these states think they are entitled to rule over the forcibly separated Nagas?
When one looks back to consult history it is quickly obvious that there were no states whatsoever in the Northeast of India when India became independent. In fact it was Nagaland State which became the first state in 1963, much to the regret of the NNC and many a Naga. The emergence of Arunachal Phradesh and Manipur States brought further divisions among the Nagas because along with what was left of Assam they were then separated and administered by four different states. Political Unity among the Nagas had ceased to exist.
Many critics will put forward that the Nagas never had a country, a nation, of their own and so how can one speak of reunification where there was no sovereign state to refer to?
The answer is as simple as the question is ridiculous:
India was no nation but only became one during the British Rule end effectively became sovereign and independent after the British left. The British shaped India. The point for the Nagas is that before the British came, though the Naga tribes were not united as in what could be called a nation, they were nevertheless closely knit together and all Nagas know they stem from the same root. Their ancestry is clear on this. Any Naga knows and tell that they belong to the same nation, the Naga Nation. This and the fact that Nagas have never been conquered by any alien force and never signed an agreement conceding their lands to an occupier, being British of Indian in nature, means that no one ever ruled over them.
It is also true that the Nagas do not claim anybody else’s land; they only want their land and their people reunited to live under one umbrella. So, according to the Nagas all lands, which were theirs before the British colonized and administered a small portion, are to be reunited.
Is that such a strange demand?
The Naga people are a peace-loving people. They want justice and because essentially there is no gap between justice and peace the Nagas actively seek ending to the political conflict but within the international system of justice. What is the harm in allowing them to settle this long-standing case without bloodshed? The Nagas want justice and the Nagas want peace. Let it be known that the Nagas, by declaring ceasefire, want to settle the political problems caused by Great Britain, India and Burma through peaceful means, through peaceful negotiations.
Politicians in Manipur are afraid the integrity of their state will be jeopardized, but what is the state of Manipur? Did the Nagas agree to be part of Manipur any time in the recent of remote past? Did they concede territory to the King of Manipur, were they conquered by the Meiteis, or later did they agree to be part of Manipur State?
The answer is no. Of course there is much more to this question than NISC can unveil in this short press release, but what must be said and acted upon is that the Nagas have every right to be reunited. It would be a matter great injustice if this can only be accomplished the hard way.
For a good understanding it should also be known that ceasefire is between two parties, Government of India and Government of Nagalim, thus it is not a ceasefire with territorial limits. The Manipuris, Meiteis, are no party to this ceasefire so there is no particular issue with them. Or is it that the Manipuri Meiteis want to frustrate the political negotiations for an honorable settlement between the Government of India and the Government of Nagalim because they want to rule over the Nagas in Manipur?
Let’s all be reasonable, the concept of states is relatively recent and nations with clear cut borders are just over 200 years old. Before that, during the time the British colonized the Northeast -the Manipuri too-, states were unknown but kingdoms or tribes ruled within their jurisdiction. The famous village state democracy concept of the Nagas bears witness to that.
NISC therefore calls on all concerned to take history, rights to self determination and inalienable rights to land at heart before screaming from the rooftops that not an inch of Arunachal, Assam or Manipur should go to Nagalim, on the premise that this will jeopardize the integrity of the relevant states of the northeast. Let’s settle this without bloodshed and work for a northeast where the people live in harmony because all their basic and collective rights are protected and defended.
For more information www.nagalim.nl or write us nisc@nagalim.nl
6 March 2010
UCM demands transparency Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, March 06, 2010: Taking serious note of the persisting demand of NSCN(IM) for a greater Nagaland, the United Committee Manipur (UCM) has demanded transparency regarding what transpired during the ongoing political dialogue between the Government of India and NSCN (IM), particularly in matters/agenda related to Manipur.
A statement issued by the UCM urged upon the State Government to take up appropriate measures and convey its stance to New Delhi in time so that relationship among different ethnic groups of the State does not get strained.
For any matter/agenda that is of concern to Manipur, due consensus should be sought from the people of Manipur, it asserted.
Welcoming all initiatives taken up to bring peace in Nagaland as well as prayer session and rallies organised by Naga people towards this end, the UCM conveyed wish that a dignified solution is achieved.
However, the UCM will fight back in a befitting manner in case the issue of Naga integration is taken up as the foremost agenda challenging the integrity of Northeastern States.
Claiming that people of Manipur put no confidence in the alleged double-standard nature of the Government of India, the UCM recalled that representatives of New Delhi spoke one thing in Manipur and something else totally contradictory in Nagaland.
The people of Manipur has neither reservation nor objection to granting sovereignty or greater autonomy or larger economic package to Nagaland.
But what is pertinent here for both the Government of India and NSCN (IM) is to recall the mass uprising of June 18, 2001 which later came to be known as the Great June Uprising Day.
The spontaneous and massive people's eruption was caused by the NSCN(IM)'s experiment of inserting the words 'without territorial limit' in ceasefire extension agreement in a bid to push ahead their dream of forming a greater Nagaland of 1,20,000 sq kms from the present Nagaland's geographical area of just 16,579 sq kms by annexing parts of Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Myanmar.
Pointing out that the design of NSCN (IM) and New Delhi was defeated by the collective strength of the people, the UCM asserted that the strength of the people has not diminished a bit since then.
Recalling those incidents where the Chief Minister smiled back when he was received at Senapati with a festoon painted with the words 'welcome to South Nagaland' and the recent incident of inscribing the name of GPRN Kilonser together with names of Cabinet Ministers on the plaque of a memorial stone, the UCM questioned the credibility of the State Government's assurance not on make any compromise on the question of territorial integrity.
It further asked the State Government to be vigilant on the ongoing dialogue between New Delhi and NSCN (IM) .
