Wati Aier
At the threshold of a decade of ceasefire between the Nagas and the Government of India (GOI), the prevailing doctrine in this historic moment is one of authoritarianism. This doctrine is rooted in our distrust of one another, unwillingness to think of political models outside of the box, and I suspect, the lack of political will.
To many nations nationalism is an outdated political doctrine. However, Nagas reiterate that nationalism is our progressive manifesto. We do not want to interpret nationalism with chauvinism. If we have done so, we are wrong and we duly apologize. On the contrary, we understand nationalism to mean the rebuilding of our nation, the resolve to take the future into our hands and at the same, the assurance of inter-dependency. We also learn from history that nationalism is the love of country and the zeal to improve it, which, sixty years ago, inspired the actions of the leaders of India, as they looked to establish an independent nation, free from the British. Similarly for the Nagas, nationalism is the impetus of our efforts. Understanding this political dynamism provides a general idea of post World War II history, which saw the creation of nation-states and the end of the colonial era. The refusal or inability to understand this will produce only bitterness and animosity. And these negative elements should not be allowed to breed in this Post-Modern world, the ramifications of which could be dangerous.
Theorists have interpreted the world of politics in many ways. In this Post-Modern age, our task is to transcend outdated methods. We must not blindly participate in the Darwinian struggle of the “survival of the fittest” but we must engage in acts of reconciliation and concord that includes not only “the fittest,” but everyone else as well. Therefore acts of political will - the capacity to subordinate biasness, perceptions, mythmaking and anything politically a priori on the part of Nagas and the GOI is a must. Political will is also the capacity to get things done in the most humane way. Resisting the interpretation of political will as a statesperson’s rhetoric of “a test of will” or the Nazi’s “triumph of will,” rejecting the “win-lose” or “lose-win” typology” of the Dark Ages, and instead embracing a “win-win” typology will ultimately signify our shift towards modern paradigms.
The sad saga of human history has been one of detrimental actions on the part of the powerful in order to divide the less powerful. Such methods have been impotent and yet costly. What is needed is a dialogue of openness, which does not attempt to dislodge one another. Consequently, such a dialogue makes it possible to transform the present impasse by considering options “outside the box” and ultimately arrive at a win-win typology.
It is imperative that issues are dealt with and a meaningful solution be sought by both the parties to the impending impasse. Prolonging the peace process through a delayed political game will only be agonizing to both the parties involved. Consequently, the end result will be barren. Do the Nagas and the GOI really want to accept an empty settlement after years of unrest and a decade of ceasefire? Quo vadimus? Where are we really going? These are the questions we must ask ourselves at this juncture.
