Expanding the Identity Naga Nation and Threat to Integrity of Neighbouring Indian States
- Part 3 -

H Bhuban Singh *

54. Now, I may please be allowed to inform leaders of India and leaders of NSCN(IM) particularly Mr. Thuingaleng Muivah who is a Tangkhul and other NSCN leaders that ethnically, linguistically, culturally, Tangkhuls and Meiteis are brothers with the Tangkhul being senior. To prove this, let me give you some examples of linguistic similarity:-

(a) Counting of Numbers:-
Tangkhul    Manipuri    English
Akha    Ama    One
Khani    Ani    Two
Katum    Ahum    Three
Mati    Mari    Four
Phanga    Manga    Five
Tharuk    Taruk    Six

(b) Languages
Tangkhul    Manipuri    English
Nawui aming Khipa Ho?    Nangi Ming Kari Kouyee?    What Is Your Name?
Nao    Inao    Baby Brother
Na Cha Haila?    Nang Chak Charabra?    Have You Taken Food?
Nali Leishiye    Nang Nungshiye    I Love You
Lai    Lan    Battlefield
and so on.

55. Culturally again, Leirum, the traditional Tangkhul blanket always forms one of the should-be and must-be items of wedding gift for any Manipuri bride, including Meitei Brahmins, whose original ancestors were mainlander Brahmins from Bengal, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh etc. Now, they are all Manipuri Hindu Brahmins in all respects of our Meitei society.

56. It is worthwhile to inform you that the Chief of all Tangkhul clans is always the Chief of Hundung in Ukhrul Dist. I had gone to Hundung to meet the Chief around 1990. Though he was only about fifty years of age at that time and I was older to him by a decade or so, he desired that I should address him as 'Ipa' meaning 'father'. I obliged him. In the courtyard of his residence, I saw stone-blocks with engravings indicating the date of visit by Maharaja Sir Churachand Singh KCSI, CBE, Maharaja Bodhchandra Singh, and Maharaja Okendra Singh. Whenever, the Tangkhul Chief of Hundung came to Imphal, I heard that he always stayed at the Palace with our Titular Maharaja Leisemba Sanajaoba. Mr. Muivah and other Tangkhuls must know, the blood, linguistic and cultural relations, we (Meiteis) have with Tangkhuls.

57. Meitei Hindus also observe 'Mera Thaomei Thanbi' (lighting a lantern) in which we erect a pole near the Tulasi Angan in the courtyard and pull up a lantern singing "Tulasi Darayo, Damu Darayo", giving a light signal to our elder Tangkhul brothers that we are well and healthy. Tangkhul brothers will reply by burning hill sides. In this kind of cultural and linguistic relationship, it well be a very difficult task for NSCN(IM) and Mr. Neiphu Rio to break up Manipur State, despite opening of his regional party, DAN (Democratic Association of Nagas) at Senapati in June 2011 (this year), as if Senapati District is now a part of Nagaland.

58. The naming of township and District of Senapati also had historical connection with the Kingdom of Manipur. During the period when Maharaja Sir Chandrakirti Singh was the monarch of Manipur, Major Gen. Sir James Johnstone, the British Political Agent in the Maharaja's Court requested our Maharaja that since he was the representative of Her Majesty Queen Victoria of England, on whose Empire the sun never sets, he might please be received by a Prince of Manipur at some place at the tip of start of Imphal Valley and the Prince and Sir Johnstone would ride horses with armed guards and band party. The willy Maharaja agreed and sent Prince Tikendrajit, who used to camp at Karong area. The tribal peoples called the camp area as Senapati since Tikendrajit was Senapati. Hence, the names of township of Senapati and of district of Senapati had historical connection. The tribal people of Karong could not have named their area as Senapati which is a Sanskrit word.

59. I now appeal to our Tangkhul, Kabui, Mao, Maram etc Nagas of Manipur to remain united as we are bound linguistically through Meiteilon (Manipuri language), which we all know.

60. Now, let me reproduce in toto, a biggish pamphlet issued by Shri SC Jamir, former Cong(I) Chief Minister of Nagaland and Governor of Goa, in toto as under:-

Bedrock Of Naga Society

State exists not only for mere life but also for the sake of good life.- Aristotle

The 16-Point Agreement of 1960 came about when the Nagas were going through the worst of times. But it was also one of the best things to have happened to the Naga people because it led to the birth of Statehood—on whose firm foundation our society is built. In a larger form of things, due to the Agreement, for the first time, the world recognised the territory of the Nagas as Nagaland.

But of late, there has been an increasing tendency to criticise the 16-point Agreement signed between the Naga People's Convention (NPC) and the Government of India that led to the creation of Nagaland State on December 1st 1963. The criticism implies that the 16-point agreement was a mistake, as the demand of the people was for complete independence from India. When carefully analysed, much of this criticism is bereft of historical facts and emanates from a section of frustrated politicians solely for the sake of narrow political and personal gains.

Such groundless criticism can be safely ignored. However, what is of greater concern is that similar comments are also being made by impartial persons who have no political axe to grind and who genuinely have the interests of Nagas at heart. They too seem to believe that the 16-point agreement compromised the demand for a sovereign Naga nation. The voice of such persons deserves attention. It is therefore, necessary that the truth should be stated and the record set straight. Let us talk on facts, not emotions. Emotions have a way of hiding the truth.

Sovereignty Myth And Reality

The fundamental assumption underlying the notion that Statehood compromised the sovereignty of Nagas, is that the Nagas were a separate independent entity from time immemorial till the British rulers conquered them, therefore, when the British left India in 1947, the Nagas should have reverted to their independent status. Prima facie, this sounds an attractive proposition, but is it really true? Let us not he misled by words like 'time immemorial'.

Did we have an independent political existence at all immediately before the British rule or even during the British days? Were we really an independent nation? A political entity or a nation has to be based on historical facts. It pre-supposes the existence of a definite political structure that governs a clearly demarcated area of land which is inhabited by a people who accept this arrangement and have close contacts with each other.

It also demands that the political structure would be either a monarchy, a democracy, an autocracy, an oligarchy, a dictatorship, or any structure that is universally accepted by political scientists as an 'independent, self-governing and well defined political entity' or a 'nation'. Other areas in the North-East like Assam, Manipur, Tripura and the Kacharis had their territories and their kingdoms. Did we?

The stark and inescapable truth is that neither did we have a definite and unified political structure and nor did we exist as a nation. We were actually a group of heterogeneous, primitive and diverse tribes living in far-flung villages that had very little in common and negligible contact with each other. Education did not exist and awareness about the world outside was totally absent. Each village was practically an entity in itself. A village does not make a nation.

The main 'contact' between villages was through the savage practice of headhunting. Mutual suspicion and distrust was rife. People led an insular and isolated life. Internecine warfare was the order of the day. There was no trust or interaction between different tribes. In these circumstances„ the question of a unified 'Naga nation' did not arise. No one can dispute these historical truths. There is enough documentation recorded by the British administrators, some as late as the end of the 19th century, which gives the correct picture as it existed. We cannot ignore such historical evidence and rely on emotional outbursts alone.

We continue to claim we were an independent nation till the British conquered us. Did we have a boundary for our nation? As late as the 1940's when British rule was almost over, large parts of today's Nagaland did not even exist on their maps. Instead of showing villages the maps showed large blank white spaces with the words "Unadministered and Unsurveyed". Did we have a ruler or a Government? The writ of a village chief did not extend beyond his village.

Did we have a capital city where the Government sat? The British Deputy Commissioner sat in Kohima out of convenience. Was this the capital of the independent Naga nation that we claim existed before the British? Did we have a currency or a coinage like other kingdoms or nations? We lived on barter till the British introduced the rupee. Did we have armed forces to defend our nation? Did we have common laws, rules and regulations for our nation as a whole? Did we have an administrative apparatus that looked after the welfare of the people? Did we have roads that linked the nation? The answer to all these are obviously in the negative.

These questions cannot be ignored, especially by those who are educated and claim to be the intelligentsia of our society. Let us face the reality that existed. Let us not distort history and let us not fool ourselves any more. The plain fact is that we never existed as an independent, unified nation at any time in our history. Yes, each village existed independently, but is that the equivalent of a Naga Nation? Even the names Naga or Angami or Ao or Sema or Chang were unknown to us. We called people of different tribes by other names.

We led a primitive and brutish life in our villages, uncivilized and unlettered. The word of Christ was unknown and unheard of. Life beyond the village boundaries was unknown. Justice was rough and summary. Diseases went unchecked. Slavery was common. People lived and died without ever leaving their villages. We had no idea of the concept of a nation or independence or nationhood. Is it right to make these tall claims that we were an independent nation before the British conquered us? At least, let us be honest about our ancestry and our history. We Nagas always prefer honesty to falsehood, however painful the truth may be.

The then Naga way of life is best summed up by RB McCabe who, writing about the Nagas in the 19th century, says "Grouped in small communities of from 100 to 3,000 persons, the Nagas have remained isolated on their hill tops, only deigning to visit their immediate neighbours when a longing for the possession of their heads become too strong to be resisted.

Beginning from the early 1950s, the Naga "nationalism" gained momentum and was accelerated with the election of AZ Phizo as president of the NNC on Dec 11, 1950. Under Phizo's leadership, the Nagas conducted the Plebiscite of May 16,1951 in which it is claimed 99.9% of the Nagas voted for independence. This Plebiscite emotionally integrated the various Naga tribes, and boosted the morale of the movement.

Most scholars agree that the whole Naga problem was ineptly handled by the then police and administration. The banning of the NNC in 1952 was a blunder which compelled the leaders to turn underground once and for all. The movement was given its first martyr when an officer of the Assam Police shot dead Zasibito Angami of Jotsoma village on October 18, 1952 during a public demonstration

The ban was a blunder because Delhi did not realise the popular support the NNC had at that point of time.

An opportunity to settle the problem once and for all came when the prime ministers of India and Burma visited Kohima on March 30, 1953. But the then deputy commissioner of Kohima, for reasons best known to him, did not allow the Nagas to submit a memorandum to the visiting Prime Ministers. The several thousand Nagas gathered at the venue to receive the VIPs, turned and left the ground enmasse when they learned they were not to make themselves heard before the Prime Ministers. This was, indeed, a turning, point in the history of the Nagas.

It is agreed that political will was lacking somewhere down the line. But more important, awareness of each other's way of life and reasoning was deplorably inadequate and thus, the impasse.

To be continued....