Something better than 16 Point Agreement?
Challenge has been thrown again and again on Nagas that any political solution in future should be better than 16-point Agreement. What's better than 16 Point Agreement? What's so special about it?
There are points of argument between underground and over-ground leaders on the issue. Some over-ground leaders argue that, but for statehood the Nagas couldn't be at the helm of power and enjoying the fruit of development today. It saved the Nagas, they argued. On the other hand the underground leaders argued that, but for national struggle led by then, Naga National Council (NNC), Naga People's Council (NPC) couldn't have achieved anything. Both sides seem right in their own way. The fact however remains that at that point of time the N.P.C made a bargain of the sovereignty for statehood against the wishes of the Naga mass or at least, the freedom fighters.
Should Nagaland be destined to remain within the Union of India? The 16 Point Agreement was without any dispute a landmark achievement for Nagas. Else, Nagas might still have remained Naga Hills district in the State of Assam. It made a good bargain by protecting the Nagas from socio-cultural invasion and prevented the Nagas from the threat of complete submerge or sublimation. Without it, we might have lost our identity.
If however, Nagaland is pre-destined to become a sovereign State it betrayed the Nagas because it decided the fate of the Nagas prematurely. There will be people to argue that the interim agreement best suited the Nagas at that point of time. I would say the clauses in the agreement too suited that period of time. The need for review of the clauses is imperative giving the fact that they have outlived the applicability of their own time.
In its present form, 16 Point Agreement made the Nagas neither wholesome Nagas nor Indians. It left us in between. It protected the Nagas from some inherent customary rights but deprived the Nagas of many of the citizens' rights enjoyed by mainland Indians. Clause 7 (4) of the agreement protected the right of ownership and transfer of their land and its resources under Article 371 (A). But it denied the common man (Nagas) from availing any substantial credit facility on the pretext that our land can't be mortgaged.
Clause 16 (Inner Line Permit - 1873) that was aimed at protecting the Nagas from exploitation and submersion in fact further alienated the Nagas. It's true that, had it not been for this clause there could have been unprecedented infiltration from across the border or even by mainland Indians for various politico-socio-economic reasons. It prevented cross-border infiltration to some extent but at the same time it also denied genuine Indian citizens of their right to live and trade in any part of India; that is to say, if Nagaland is really considered an integral part of India.
The British-India legacy of Inner line regulatory (ILP) and Restricted Area Permit (RAP) systems still in force in the State further proved that 16 Point Agreement has outlived its time. Surprisingly, no real attempt was made to bring out new monitoring mechanism to suit the present time. These age-old regulatory systems strangulated the Nagas economically. Even some Indian citizens long living in the State and fed up of ILP renewal went so far as to confess that, either Nagaland is taken as Indian State in its entirety or leave it totally. These systems prevented Indian citizens to judiciously invest in Nagaland except for encouraging them to drain the State's economy. Else, do we have any big industrial house in the State?
Imposition of inhuman Acts like Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 and Disturbed Area Act in the State of Nagaland under whatever pretext further alienated the Nagas and proved that Nagas are not taken as equal citizens on equal footing.
Clauses 12 (Consolidation of Forest areas) and 13 (Consolidation of contiguous Naga Areas) were only wishes included for the sake of recording as it remains to be seen as far as the implementation of these clauses are concerned.
At best, 16 Point Agreement corrupted most Nagas in high places; made the rich richer and the poor poorer. The wonder and reality of sixteen point agreement and statehood was that it made a Naga, partially Naga and partially Indian. It made an Indian coming to Nagaland a second class citizen or a foreigner.
In sovereignty point of view, had it been translated into reality, nine point agreement placed the Nagas on better footing as it gave the option to Nagas to choose their own destiny on completion of ten years. The Nagas are fighting for sovereignty and the nationalists would agree with me (with due apology of the State's architects) that; to nationalists, something better than sixteen point agreement would only mean sovereignty and nothing less. Fact of the matter is that, whether it's statehood or sovereignty the Nagas are divided. That puts us in a situation then, that no durable solution for Nagas can be found without building a consensus between the underground and over-ground Nagas.
The 16 Point Agreement could have been a great achievement had the Nagas lived true to their commitment instead of pursuing the affairs for self-interest. Sadly, we have too many people preaching honesty after amassing public wealth by taking advantage of the statehood when majority of the Nagas were then ignorant. Corruption in high places ruined the Nagas. Instead of giving direction to the Nagas the reality of statehood compounded the Naga political problem because some people were busy making hay while the going was good for them.
The 16 Point Agreement and statehood became a blessing for only those who were within the reach. In general, it divided the Naga society into "haves" and "not haves". Hence, if not for political reason this great socio-economic divide will always be a cause for unrest.
The 16 Point Agreement might have been good to serve the purpose of its own time and generation. Yet, it's not good enough to serve the purpose of the present time. Sovereignty may seem untenable to some Nagas. But has the reality of statehood solved our problem? Giving the length of our struggle we certainly deserve better and more than what we have today should even sovereignty be delayed or denied.
Dr. K. Hoshi, Phek Town
If you like this article Share it and spread the word!
There are points of argument between underground and over-ground leaders on the issue. Some over-ground leaders argue that, but for statehood the Nagas couldn't be at the helm of power and enjoying the fruit of development today. It saved the Nagas, they argued. On the other hand the underground leaders argued that, but for national struggle led by then, Naga National Council (NNC), Naga People's Council (NPC) couldn't have achieved anything. Both sides seem right in their own way. The fact however remains that at that point of time the N.P.C made a bargain of the sovereignty for statehood against the wishes of the Naga mass or at least, the freedom fighters.
Should Nagaland be destined to remain within the Union of India? The 16 Point Agreement was without any dispute a landmark achievement for Nagas. Else, Nagas might still have remained Naga Hills district in the State of Assam. It made a good bargain by protecting the Nagas from socio-cultural invasion and prevented the Nagas from the threat of complete submerge or sublimation. Without it, we might have lost our identity.
If however, Nagaland is pre-destined to become a sovereign State it betrayed the Nagas because it decided the fate of the Nagas prematurely. There will be people to argue that the interim agreement best suited the Nagas at that point of time. I would say the clauses in the agreement too suited that period of time. The need for review of the clauses is imperative giving the fact that they have outlived the applicability of their own time.
In its present form, 16 Point Agreement made the Nagas neither wholesome Nagas nor Indians. It left us in between. It protected the Nagas from some inherent customary rights but deprived the Nagas of many of the citizens' rights enjoyed by mainland Indians. Clause 7 (4) of the agreement protected the right of ownership and transfer of their land and its resources under Article 371 (A). But it denied the common man (Nagas) from availing any substantial credit facility on the pretext that our land can't be mortgaged.
Clause 16 (Inner Line Permit - 1873) that was aimed at protecting the Nagas from exploitation and submersion in fact further alienated the Nagas. It's true that, had it not been for this clause there could have been unprecedented infiltration from across the border or even by mainland Indians for various politico-socio-economic reasons. It prevented cross-border infiltration to some extent but at the same time it also denied genuine Indian citizens of their right to live and trade in any part of India; that is to say, if Nagaland is really considered an integral part of India.
The British-India legacy of Inner line regulatory (ILP) and Restricted Area Permit (RAP) systems still in force in the State further proved that 16 Point Agreement has outlived its time. Surprisingly, no real attempt was made to bring out new monitoring mechanism to suit the present time. These age-old regulatory systems strangulated the Nagas economically. Even some Indian citizens long living in the State and fed up of ILP renewal went so far as to confess that, either Nagaland is taken as Indian State in its entirety or leave it totally. These systems prevented Indian citizens to judiciously invest in Nagaland except for encouraging them to drain the State's economy. Else, do we have any big industrial house in the State?
Imposition of inhuman Acts like Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 and Disturbed Area Act in the State of Nagaland under whatever pretext further alienated the Nagas and proved that Nagas are not taken as equal citizens on equal footing.
Clauses 12 (Consolidation of Forest areas) and 13 (Consolidation of contiguous Naga Areas) were only wishes included for the sake of recording as it remains to be seen as far as the implementation of these clauses are concerned.
At best, 16 Point Agreement corrupted most Nagas in high places; made the rich richer and the poor poorer. The wonder and reality of sixteen point agreement and statehood was that it made a Naga, partially Naga and partially Indian. It made an Indian coming to Nagaland a second class citizen or a foreigner.
In sovereignty point of view, had it been translated into reality, nine point agreement placed the Nagas on better footing as it gave the option to Nagas to choose their own destiny on completion of ten years. The Nagas are fighting for sovereignty and the nationalists would agree with me (with due apology of the State's architects) that; to nationalists, something better than sixteen point agreement would only mean sovereignty and nothing less. Fact of the matter is that, whether it's statehood or sovereignty the Nagas are divided. That puts us in a situation then, that no durable solution for Nagas can be found without building a consensus between the underground and over-ground Nagas.
The 16 Point Agreement could have been a great achievement had the Nagas lived true to their commitment instead of pursuing the affairs for self-interest. Sadly, we have too many people preaching honesty after amassing public wealth by taking advantage of the statehood when majority of the Nagas were then ignorant. Corruption in high places ruined the Nagas. Instead of giving direction to the Nagas the reality of statehood compounded the Naga political problem because some people were busy making hay while the going was good for them.
The 16 Point Agreement and statehood became a blessing for only those who were within the reach. In general, it divided the Naga society into "haves" and "not haves". Hence, if not for political reason this great socio-economic divide will always be a cause for unrest.
The 16 Point Agreement might have been good to serve the purpose of its own time and generation. Yet, it's not good enough to serve the purpose of the present time. Sovereignty may seem untenable to some Nagas. But has the reality of statehood solved our problem? Giving the length of our struggle we certainly deserve better and more than what we have today should even sovereignty be delayed or denied.
Dr. K. Hoshi, Phek Town
If you like this article Share it and spread the word!
0 comments:
Post a Comment