“Sovereignty” is one such term that, either directly or indirectly, has defined so much of modern Naga history, psyche, economy, governance, and almost every aspect of their lives. I believe that this is one area where even the most uninterested or uninitiated can claim complete immunity from its effects. Every political party in the state claims that resolving this issue is their top priority. This is an aspiration that has both united and divided the Nagas. There are claims and counterclaims in the face of such divisions. There are allegations and counter-allegations. Throughout the process, the very definition of Sovereignty is frequently called into question. According to one school of thought, the context of sovereignty has changed, and what the Nagas fought for – as sovereignty – in the 1950s and 1960s is no longer valid in the twenty-first century. Over the decades, as the Nagas have fought against all odds, they have been bombarded with numerous messages at various levels -economic, political, and psychological, which appear to be validated by underlying events, that many of the messages, which at times are pure propaganda, appear to be so true. With each such event, the divisions grow stronger and wider – as each of their points of view is ‘validated’ as the only correct point of view.
Though the term “sovereignty” may mean different things to different people at different times, it is true that today’s sovereign states are based on the Westphalian concept of nation-state sovereignty, as established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The formation of the United Nations in 1945 with 51 members consolidated this 17th-century Westphalian concept of sovereignty. Each member is a ‘sovereign’ nation-state. It is important to note that the UN is made up of ‘nation-states’ rather than ‘nations.’ Thus, while the formation of the UN in 1945 consolidated nation-state sovereignty, it was not an end in itself, as more and more sovereign nation-states continued to be formed, and the UN now has over 200 members.
The increase in UN membership is shown in the table below.
In contrast, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), founded in 1991, claims to represent 100 million people through its 61 members.
International relations theorists have identified several key principles in the Peace Treaty of Westphalia that explain the Treaty’s significance and impact on the world today:
1. The principle of state sovereignty and the basic right to political self-determination.
2. The principle of state (legal) equality.
3. The principle of one state not intervening in the internal affairs of another.
When a people or community exercises the above three principles within a set of geographical boundaries, they are referred to as a “sovereign nation.”
Now, how would the Westphalian concept of nation-state sovereignty be stretched or applied if humans colonized the moon, Mars, or another extraterrestrial body? Under whose sovereign jurisdiction will the moon’s colony operate? As one gets closer to Earth, the ‘orbital slot,’ at 35,786 km, becomes more limited. Geostationary satellites can only be parked at this altitude. Who is in charge of this premium satellite parking space? There are already conflicts between countries vying for the same orbital slots. Whose sovereign authority will it be? At the moment, the International Telecommunications Union is in charge of allocating orbital spectrum. However, countries, particularly those near the equator, are asserting their legal sovereign claim to the same. The mineral-rich Arctic and Antarctic ice continents are currently being debated for sovereign jurisdiction on the planet.
So, is sovereignty just a hazy concept that is now out of date and irrelevant to the Nagas? Is economic development a more important issue in today’s globalized world?
According to John Naisbitt (Global Paradox), even as the world becomes more integrated economically, more nations will be formed politically. He predicts that by 2050, there will be 1000 nations, despite the fact that the UN was founded with only 51 ‘nations’ in 1945.
Naisbitt describes the political and economic imperatives that drove the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, as well as the push for national sovereignty that has characterized states like Andorra. While economic and technological forces have weakened the traditional nation-state, he maintains that they have strengthened, rather than separated people from, longstanding identities of language, culture, religion, and ethnic heritage. In a paradoxical way, “the bonding commonality of human beings is our distinctiveness.”
Sovereignty, according to this viewpoint, has multiple layers. Each layer communicates with the other. One layer may overshadow the other at times, but each layer remains distinct and unique. These layers are loosely defined as Basic sovereignty, Middle sovereignty, and Top sovereignty. In general, one’s identity constitutes basic sovereignty. How he or she is identified to the rest of the world, and how the rest of the world recognizes that identity. For international travel, for example, his official nationality will be listed in his passport. A people’s ownership of land, culture, and practices constitutes medium-level sovereignty. The strategic and economic layer is at the highest level.
Most wars are fought for control of economic resources or to protect such resources, for the top layer. The British Empire had no intention of removing or violating the Nagas’ basic or medium layer sovereignty. Their only concern was to protect and project their economic interest in Assam’s tea gardens and, later, oil. Japan entered WWII because of its desire for oil and natural resources from other Asian countries. The war in Iraq was motivated by oil rather than terrorism. Afghanistan? One underlying interest is the oil pipeline from Central Asia, which must necessarily pass through Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has one of the largest American air bases for American interest. The United States has 50,000 troops in South Korea and occupies an entire island in Japan. Korea and Japan, on the other hand, are still considered sovereign states. The common thread in all these cases is not imposing the occupying power’s citizenship, but rather protecting and expanding its top layer sovereign interest.
Nagas have only recently been exposed to the top layer of the three layers. However, we are still not fully aware of the situation or its implications. However, because the top layer has been thrust upon us through the introduction of the monetary system and other global events, we are frequently perplexed by the same. After much struggle and bloodshed, India has granted the Nagas a semblance of medium layer sovereignty via Article 371A. But it maintains an ironclad grip on our fundamental sovereignty. This is the central issue in the conflict. The Nagas practiced basic and medium sovereignty layers from generation to generation. Nagas were unaware of the economic dimension of nationhood and may not have given it much thought. Despite the absence of formal (written) treaties, the Nagas’ practice of sovereignty fully fulfilled all three key principles of the Westphalian concept of sovereign states. When their basic sovereignty was threatened, the Naga people instinctively understood and rose as one without much explanation.
The top layer of the three layers is perhaps the one in which the Government of India should be most interested. This is the layer that is most amenable to negotiation and resolution. On this layer, the concept of shared sovereignty applies. This is already the case in many economic and infrastructure areas, and some of it is required for development. The European Union, which has a single monetary system, is primarily concerned with this layer. This can include economic, defense, and strategic arrangements for Indo-Naga settlement. As a result, identifying the common interest layer and working on it will be critical to breaking the stalemate.
Even at the pinnacle of imperial power, the British did not insist on Indians being British. The presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, and other parts of the world does not infringe on the host countries’ basic and medium layer sovereignty. Can’t India and the Nagas reach a similar agreement? The Commonwealth Games, which will be held in Delhi, are a good example of such an understanding. What do all of the countries participating in the CWG have in common, other than having once been part of the British Empire? However, by remaining under the Commonwealth umbrella, the United Kingdom retains some influence on the top layer of sovereignty, however tenuous.
When it comes to sending military forces, occupying powers usually project only the ‘purest’ and best of intentions. Americans referred to their war in Iraq as “Iraqi Freedom,” and they slaughtered thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Queen-Empress, upon assuming the title “Empress of India” at the proclamation Durbar Delhi 1st January 1877, had a beautiful message for their Indian colony:
“We trust that the present occasion may tend to unite in bonds of yet closer affection ourselves and our subjects; that from the highest to the humblest all may feel that under our rule the great principles of liberty, equity and justice are secured to them and that to promote their happiness to add to their prosperity and advance their welfare are the ever-present aims and objects of our empire”. (Inscribed at the Queen Victoria Memorial Hall, Kolkata).
That being the case, even AFPSA, the inhuman Act in operation in Nagaland, most of the Northeast, and Kashmir, is described by its supporters as a people-protection act. As a result, we should not be surprised that the Assam Rifles refer to themselves as “The Friends of the Hill People,” but not as “The Best Friends of the Hill People.”
Slavery, which directly impacted a people’s basic and medium level sovereignty, was merely a means for the colonial powers to achieve their top layer economic interests. Many of the world’s great powers have realized that the old-world order of slavery for cheap labor, wars and military conquest for resources and markets, is neither the first nor the best way to achieve their economic interests. They have now fine-tuned their methods using more effective and subtle methods. This is something that India is already aware of. It is also aware that political maps of countries can and have shifted over time.
As a result, at this point, Nagas must speak with one voice to India. But if we continue to be confused and refuse to reconcile with each other, and if the current Naga reconciliation process is jeopardized by our own egos, I am afraid we will have to put our basic sovereignty on hold for another generation or so, as internecine blood flows once more. The Government of India will only benefit from this situation. If this is the case, our national workers may unwittingly become an impediment to achieving the Basic Naga Sovereignty for which they claim to be fighting. Another paradox. Can we save ourselves from this self-defeating paradox?
———-
The opinion was first published on September 18, 2010, in a local Nagaland based newspaper (Nagaland Post/The Morung Express / Eastern Mirror). The author re-edited and re-published the piece on the ICNA web-only features platform. The authors’ views are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of nagaaffairs.org