Ziren Yanthan
Chümoukedima
As a citizen of India, Dr SC Jamir has every right to speak for himself and for his community. This is a fundamental right enshrined in Indian Constitution under the Freedom of Speech and Expression. However, we Nagas often exhibit a tendency to blindly agree with the words of high-status individuals without critically examining their true intent. This culture of blind respect is one of the primary reasons our society continues to lag behind others in meaningful progress.
Why does the past matter? Consider this: if Christian missionaries had not arrived in the Naga Hills, would we be advocating for Christian values and rights today, or would we still be worshipping stones, trees, and spirits? We can’t just pick and choose the parts of history that make us feel good and ignore the rest. Doing so is the height of double standards.
Having said that, historical facts must be confronted. It is widely documented - most notably revealed through his own letter to P Shilu Ao in 1963 - that it was Dr. S.C. Jamir who intervened to stop a crucial meeting between Jawaharlal Nehru and AZ Phizo. Because of this, a vital negotiation was thwarted. Had that meeting between Nehru and Phizo taken place rather than being sabotaged, Naga leaders and the Indian Government might have reached a real, lasting solution back then.
Consequently, the current quagmire of 37+ Naga Political Groups and factions - a situation Dr. Jamir himself now laments - might never have materialized. We might have been spared the tragic bloodshed born of factional rivalries. This begs a critical question: has the Naga political solution become increasingly complex and problematic simply because certain individuals prioritize defending their personal legacies over the collective welfare of the society?
Today, Nagaland boasts a literacy rate of over 95.7%. With such an educated populace, should we still blindly swallow the narratives of high-status figures without examining the sequence of past events? Merely knowing our history is not enough; we must critically analyze it. Only by dissecting our past can we avoid repeating its mistakes and ensure that the decisions we make today prevent future Naga generations from suffering the way we do today.
Ultimately, the debate is not about whether Dr SC Jamir has the right to speak for the Nagas; the real question is whether what he says is actually right for the Naga people. I, for one, refuse to blindly endorse a figure whose historical sabotage of a unified Naga political solution directly birthed the very morass we find ourselves trapped in today.
Kuknalim
