In the aftermath of the exchange that reportedly elicited “approving smiles and happiness” between Isak and Muivah (as was published in the 18 November 2023 edition of this newspaper), the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN-IM) has teased further insights into the dynamics shaping Naga political unity in their news bulletin, Nagalim Voice, January-February 2024 edition.
According to the NSCN-IM, following Brig (Retd) Shingyia and Gen Kholi Konyak declaring Isak Swu and Th Muivah as their leaders in the meeting, it was Muivah who suggested of having “one nation, one people, one government, one party, one issue, one tax and, therefore, there should be only one treasury.”
Muivah believed that there should no discrimination to anyone in financial management and, therefore, he was of the view that tax collected to one treasury has to be equally channelized to facilitate among all the national workers and manage the affairs.
“He suggested forming one finance committee/economic council from the three different groups to manage the affairs of one national government. To everyone’s surprise, Mr Zhopra, the vice president of Shingyia group stood up and suggested maintaining the respective treasury until the solution is achieved. It was immediately seconded by Mr. Kitovi,” the NSCN-IM stated in its Nagalim Voice.
It added that it was at this point Isak and Muivah realized the ‘death end of reconciliation’ and from there the FNR couldn’t go further.
GoI responsible for creating many factions and multiple taxes
Acknowledging that there are more than ten factions with their own respective treasuries with their own presidents, prime ministers, army chiefs etc, the NSCN-IM asked, “can there be unity with many treasuries and different heads?”
“GoI created many factions and multiple taxations in order to demoralize the Naga people in the Naga national liberation movement. The government of India allowed designated offices to be opened and allowed to collect money. On the other hand, the Naga people started shouting without recognizing the culprits,” stated the NSCN-IM.
Reiterating that Nagas’ unity is a threat to the government of India, the NSCN-IM claimed that it was for the same reason, Nagas were divided and subdivided, beginning from Nehru.
“During the NNC regime, there were no factions. The first faction was the Revolutionary Government of Nagaland. This has nothing to do with ideological issues but simply an offshoot of a frustrated leadership crisis problem. Expectedly it didn’t last long and surrendered. After the sold out Shillong Accord, NSCN was formed to continue the movement. Thereafter, the GoI mercenaries created many splinter groups – so called factions,” it stated.
“The government of India is responsible for creating many factions and the multiple taxes. Unfortunately, common people don’t understand the internal complexity of different factions,” it added.
Nagas and the ‘enemies within’
According to the NSCN-IM, slogans such as “All are equal and working/fighting for the same cause” are a ‘misconception’ and are viewed as having produced more factions.
“Unscrupulous leaders claiming to be faction leaders have commercialized the Naga issue to their personal benefit in the name of national workers,” it stated, adding that, “Among Naga factions, not all are fighting the common enemies for the same cause.”
“Nagas are facing the problem of ‘enemies within’. Some factions are in Indian camps and fighting against the loyal Naga nationalists tooth and nail even prior to the 1997 ceasefire,” it claimed, asking where Kitovi or Shingyia or Zhopra were during those difficult times.
“NSCN fought single-handedly for the Naga cause at the international level and also on the home front, sacrificing many precious lives. Does your conscience permit you to say that all are equal and fighting for the same cause? Shall we give the same credit to those who are also in Indian security forces camps? Let us be reasonable and speak out the truth,” the NSCN-IM stated in its Nagalim Voice with more insights to continue in their next issue of Nagalim Voice.
Meanwhile, in an interview with the Caravan Magazine published on 17 September 2021, NNPGs convenor Kitomi Zhimomi claimed that they (NNPGs) didn’t want to compromise on sovereignty, but, prior to their invitation for negotiation, the whole thing had been damaged by the NSCN-IM.
Zhimomi claimed in the interview that when the NSCN-IM signed the extension to their ceasefire [with the Indian government] in 2001 in Bangkok, they did so “without any territorial limit,” [not limited to Nagaland alone, but with a proviso that] the ceasefire, “should not be adverse to any northeastern states.”
“This means they compromised integration. On 3 August 2015, they [the NSCN (IM) faction] signed the framework agreement. In that agreement, they clearly stated that they “appreciated the intricacies of the Indian system.” If they appreciate the intricacies of the Indian system, the constitution of the Indian system, the governing and electioneering system of India, then the question of Naga sovereignty doesn’t arise. Prior to our negotiation, maximum damage had already been done, which we couldn’t repair,” Caravan magazine wrote as Zhimomi said.
[Read the 18 November 2023 exordium of this article with the same title here]