Shared Sovereignty between India and Nagalim

Dissertation topic on “Shared Sovereignty between India and Nagalim”

Research question: How the shared sovereignty can end the conflict between India and Nagalim; and what will be the legal and administrative relation between the two nations state?

 

The objective: I am interested in seeing the end of Naga political problem at the earliest. I want to study “shared-sovereignty,” because I believe that studying and learning this specific topic would enrich my knowledge on law and governance system of India and Naga political problem. Besides, it may help me understand the mechanism of sharing of power between centre and state and between one or more nation state. The Naga society needs youngsters who have heart and mind for social change, and possess good legal knowledge and administrative knowledge so that they can contribute to the society by exploring the ways in which Nagas can co-exist with India, Burma and other communities. Naga people have been demanding sovereignty for long period of time; many lives have been sacrificed and immeasurable loss and trauma endured for the cause.

Recently, the Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s NDA government and National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) signed a “Historic Peace Accord” on 3rd August 2015. The main issues are: Naga people have been demanding complete sovereignty; on the other hand, it is very hard to fulfill Nagas’ demand for Indian government. Fortunately, both the parties have shown the willingness to come to the meeting point of agreement. Since the signing of Indo-Naga peace in 1978, they have been working to settle this issue. Recent developments seem to indicate that the main framework of the negotiations is to find a solution based on what is called “Shared- Sovereignty”. Therefore, I want to study “shared-sovereignty” especially in the context of India and Naga for solving the Naga political problem and to know more about the framework of an agreement and I am very interested to study how both sides can work out on shared sovereignty (legal and administrative) and I want to analyze the situation critically how can two nation co-exist together by sharing sovereignty.

 

Background: The Naga National political movement is in a sense as old as the Indian Union. In its attempt to maintain peace and security, the Government of India has been trying to dissuade the Nagas from demanding Nationhood by adopting various means both repressive and ideological; whereas NSCN and Naga civil society believe in “Greater Nagalim and sovereignty” as their birth right. The formation of Nagaland, India’s first tribal state supported by a landmark constitutional amendment, failed to resolve the insurgency problem. Many accords have been signed in the past:

  1. Nine Point Agreement in 1947;
  2. Sixteen Point Agreement in 1960;
  3. Shillong Accord in 1975 and
  4. Historic Peace Accord in 2015.

Most of the agreements fail because the movement demands a nation state and tested the limits of federalism. And recently on August 3rd 2015, the government of India and NSCN signed a “Historic Peace Accord” to settle the political problem under the basis of shared-sovereignty. It is said that in fact, a “framework agreement” which provide the board contours of an acceptable solution to be negotiated in the coming political journey between the two parties. However the question always remain that will this latest accord can solve the political problem as a product of about hundred round of negotiations since 1945, and end the oldest insurgencies and heal the wounds of the Naga people who has lost many life in the struggle for  Naga Nation? Or will it fail again like other agreement? Or how the atmosphere of distrust has imbued that the Naga political solution can’t solved in table negotiation but is it lies in the understanding among the people through Naga Historical foundation from the bottom line’s focusing towards the target by using ideas and capacity to find the way out with Naga political right to be driven out from Indian control in a political meant and skilful constitutional ways under shared sovereignty? I need to find out in my best level.

 

Conceptual terms: Sovereignty, share sovereignty, federal structure, Autonomy, Nagalim, Kuknalim, Indianisation, Nationalism, Naga, National Movement, Naga Hoho, Pan Naga Hoho.

Sovereignty: it can be understood in jurisprudence is the full power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.

Etymology: Derived from Latin through French souveraineté, its attainment and retention, in both Chinese and Western] culture, has traditionally been associated with certain moral imperatives upon any claimant.

More about sovereignty in my understanding: In my understanding of sovereign state is one which governs itself independently of any foreign power. I remember that according to classical Liberals though they consider every individual as sovereign on oneself. On the other hand sovereignty included mainly four sub part in my understanding on modern political concept as under:

  1. Legal sovereignty: the supreme law making power and final power to commands.
  2. Political sovereignty: legitimate power to administrate the state
  3. Internal sovereignty: empower to control domestic issues.
  4. External sovereignty: is the power of the state in relation with other nation.

 

Some characteristic of sovereignty:

  1. Permanence: as long as the state exist, it sovereignty exist.
  2. Executive: there is one supreme body in the state to exercise the power in the populations.
  3. Comprehensiveness: sovereignty powers everything within territorial limit.
  4. Inalienability: it is essential element without self-destruction.
  5. Absoluteness: sovereignty is a primary power and as a matter of legal right.
  6. Unity: the wills of the people which is inconsistence with the notion of sovereignty.

Thereby, in my understand from the above concept of sovereignty, it cannot be shared. However, if it is to be shared, then it is a two nation theory or more nation theory as in the case of European Union member countries.

 

Nagalim: the etymological of the word Nagalim derive from the word (Naga which mean Na =ear/ ga=hole, recognized as the people who are half naked with big hole in their ear and ‘Lim’ is a land in AO dialect). This word is literally used by the Naga people as demanding Naga nation as Nagalim.

Kuknalim:  Kukna means long live and thanks, and lim means Land but we use it at the end of our speech and writing. We usually understand Kuknalim word as long live Nagalim and thanks.

Federal structure: It is a set of system in the state characterized by the constituting a form of government in which power is divided between one central and several regional authorities. In a federal system of government, sovereignty also refers to powers which a constituent state or republic possesses independently of the national government. In a confederation constituent entities retain the right to withdraw from the national body, but in a federation member states or republics do not hold that right.

Nation-states: A community of people who claim the right of self-determination based on a common ethnicity, history and culture might seek to establish sovereignty over a region, thus creating a nation-state. Such nations are sometimes recognized as autonomous areas rather than as fully sovereign, independent states.

Autonomy: political independence under the state and the capacity of the system to make its own decision about its action. Sixth Schedule [Arts 244 (2) and 275 (1)] of Indian constitution mention about the Autonomy, “Provisions as to the administration of tribal areas in the state of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.”

Nationalism: the doctrine that the nation act independently to attain their goal and the aspiration for national independence felt by groups of people under foreign domination. And love of the nation and willingness to sacrifice for the national cause.

Share-Sovereignty: Sharing of power between two or more nation under certain term and condition. Example European Union. However, the concept of shared-Soveriegnty between India and Naga is different from western understanding of shared sovereignty.

The term “Shared sovereignty” used in Indo-Naga peace talk has different from European Union (EU) sharing of sovereignty; in case of European Union all the independent state and they are sharing their sovereign-power with certain term and condition for a reason however in case of India and Naga, they has their own meaning and understanding of the term for shared-sovereignty. According to 3rd August agreement the shared sovereignty; the Sovereign power lies with people; this term (Shared-Sovereignty) is used in negotiation of the peace talk in order to solve Naga political problem.

In my understanding of the term “Shared-Sovereignty” is sharing administrative power and legislative power and other as a separate nation between India and Nagalim: The Naga will function as an independence nation under Pan Naga Hoho system; there are some areas Indian can oversets to Nagalim under the agreement of Shared-Soveriengty. Which shows that Naga are not completely independent but they are under the Union of India with some equivalence power of a nation? Naga will have their Supreme Court and Parliament under shared sovereignty.

What is shared sovereignty?

Shared sovereignty according to NSCN IM:

Explains on ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’, shared sovereignty under Peace Accord: NSCN (I-M) general secretary Th. Muivah is the chief negotiator from Nagalim and he said this while speaking at the 8th Naga Consultative Meeting held at Niathu Resort, Chumukedima Monday to a gathering that included various Naga tribal organisations both from within and outside India.

It was also learnt that Th. Muivah had spoken about the proposed ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’ that would look after the welfare of Naga areas which could not be included in the Naga integration due to geographical location.

It was also learnt, that Th. Muivah had revealed, that the government of India had accepted it as part of the competencies. He said the ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’ will be a statutory body with certain powers having separate budget, and “very unique for the Nagas”.

According to Th. Muivah, both negotiating sides however agreed to share the competencies by respecting people’s wishes on “sharing sovereign power” as defined in the competencies where both sides agreed on a peaceful co-existence.

A resolution adopted after the consultative meeting expressed appreciation and acknowledgement to the government of India and NSCN(I-M) for signing of the framework agreement on August 3,2015 which should lead to an acceptable and honorable settlement of the “Indo-Naga issue”. It was also resolved to reiterate and uphold resolutions adopted at previous Naga people’s consultative meetings and to ceaselessly work towards unity in a spirit of forgiveness and oneness.

Meanwhile, a press statement issued by the MIP/NSCN(I-M) acknowledged the “spirited response” of the Naga people and expressed its sincere gratitude and satisfaction to all participants as well as well wishers “far and wide across Nagalim”.

MIP said it also looked forward to more such significant consultations in future and that at the end of it, due to the concerted efforts “we have taken a historic decision today for the Nagas”.

Meanwhile, NSCN (I-M) leadership is scheduled to hold a meeting on Wednesday (August 26) with all the 60 legislators of Nagaland at Dimapur. The meeting is proposed to be held at Chumukedima, police complex. It was not known whether NSCN (I-M) general secretary Th. Muivah would be attending the meeting”

 

Shared sovereignty according to Indian Government:

­ Nagaland Governor PB Acharya, Citing the Article 371 (A), contained in the 16 ­Point Agreement that resulted in the formation of Nagaland, he said though Nagaland enjoys absolute safeguard as per the Article, the Centre would have ‘eminent domain’ and overriding power. On sharing the sovereign power, he said the Nagas will be the ‘master’ while in case of minerals and resources “whatever is below and above land” will belong to Nagas- DIMAPUR, Aug 29 (Nagaland Post).

 

Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) chief R.N Ravi is the chief negotiator from Indian side and he said sharing sovereign power will not be mere semantics or playing with words but that there will be a “genuine devolution” where Nagas will become “almost sovereign ­like.” He said this was what Government of India translated in terms of uniqueness of Naga history. On “what would be the shape” of the arrangement for Nagas outside Nagaland, he said it would depend on how it was negotiated by both the parties. Regarding the crucial issue of integration of Naga areas in the North East, Ravi admitted that it still remained in the agenda while adding that it would have to be achieved through a democratic process. Says relationship between India & Nagas on the basis of shared sovereignty Interlocutor for Naga peace talks, the Chairman of the Joint intelligence Committee Ravi said sovereignty lies with the people and no country was independent, but inter­dependent yet for Nagas, it would be independent and the relationship between India and Nagas would be on the basis of sharing of sovereign power.

 

Shared sovereignty in my point of view:

After Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on 3rd August that a peace accord has been signed with the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) to end the decades-old Naga insurgency, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday November 2015 referred the accord as a “framework agreement” and said it would help in resolving the Naga problem.

Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) chief R.N Ravi represent Indian Government and NSCN (IM) represent Naga people negotiating under shared sovereignty: According to my understanding share sovereignty is the best way to solve the Naga political issues and it can be possible to shares sovereignty between two or more nation. Because, Naga cannot live as a nation for many reason in the present political scenario, and for geo-political security reason. And they were not satisfied to stay under Art 371 (A) and they want more autonomy power equivalent to nation. However, in order to fulfill Naga demand, India constitution should expend on specific Article and I believe that shared sovereignty between Indian and Nagalim is good ideas, it might be very complex but it can be working out like United Kingdom (UK) and Scotland model.

 

I want to study the concept of “shared sovereignty” whether it is in the areas of “Center List and State List” which is similar to the “federal Structure” because, in some matter, state were sovereign while in some other centre was; the sovereignty in matters of State List could be further augmented keeping the uniqueness of the Naga historical right. The constitution of India has given special power to the state of Nagaland under article 371 (A) can be extended while working out for the “Pan Naga Hoho or Nagalim” as demanded by the Nagas. Thereby, I want to focus mainly in two perspectives as under:

  1. Legal Perspective.
  2. Administrative Perspective.

 

Legal Perspective: Indian constitution is one of the most complete written constitutions in the world. On the other hand, Nagas/Nagalim customary law is totally different from Indian constitutional law, legally speaking. Because they follow ‘Naga customary law’ to settle most of the conflict in the Nagalim but the Customary Law is partly written and partly not written. Naga leaders are closed study the Hong Kong and Chinese model administrative relation; in this regard, the special administrative Principality region may bring considerable autonomy for the Nagas to learn many areas of nation-hood and governance that may be required from a nation-state, Flags, Passports, border controls, independent judiciary and governance institutions, all are symbols of a nation under Shared sovereignty. The shared economic, foreign and military affairs areas would help train the Nagas to develop their economy and build up needed exposure on the international arena using the existing systems put in place by India. This saves Nagas the considerable headache and stress of having built everything from scratch, as they can share the platforms in areas of economic and foreign affairs issues with India Nagas want to protect their identities and they don’t them to recognize as India but as Nagas in international community. Thereby, I want to study how these can be working out legally under shared sovereignty; I think India and Nagalim should have separate constitution but when there is contrast between the two laws then constitution of India will prevail. However, in our Naga Homeland, Naga Customary Law is very powerful; it can exile to very power person from Nagalim. Naga has their own form of court functioning under three tier system; village council court in the village level, Tribal court/ Longpang and Longrei in district level, and Naga Hoho the apex body of all 48 plus Nagas tribe, who use to settle tribe to tribe conflicts and other crucial cases under Naga Customary Law.

Example:  Mr. Victor Keishing MLA and Preshaw Shimray MLA were banned and ex-communicated from the Tangkhul Naga Community under Customary law by Tangkhul Naga Long ON 20th October 2015. Now they cannot set their foot to Naga Homeland according our customary Law until the issues is settled. However, the constitution of India is nothing to do in these issues of banning them.

Administrative Perspective: Nagas were following very different type of administrative system when compared to Indian administrative system. In Nagas system of administration; each village enjoyed village sovereignty and later some power transfer to tribal council and to the Naga Hoho. They have their own form of Naga democracy in grassroots level; in the village level each clan elected their representative and sent to village council and from the village council they will elect the best men to ‘Tribal Council’ for electing the tribal leaders. And again from the tribal council they will elect the best men to sent Naga Hoho for administration the Nagalim through Naga Customary Law. Federation structure and Autonomy in India constitution is limits for Nagas but they demanded Naga Nation state from India and Burma to administer in their own through their Customary Law.  Thereby, I want to explore how the Nagas administrative system can be work under shared sovereignty between India and Nagalim. Nagas think that Pan Naga Hoho form of administration can be work in shared sovereignty but I don’t have clear vision that it will settle the decade’s long Indo-Naga conflict. Thereby, I want to study and explore further on “share-sovereignty” and study how it can help to settle the conflict with the best interest of both the parties. I have to study the how “Share Sovereignty” can work on Pan Naga Hoho”, its contents, ideas, power sharing, legal issue, functioning of court, administration system  and governance process in share-sovereignty,  and relationship between two or more nations under Share-Sovereign in legal perspective.

Pan Naga Hoho: the proposed ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’ that would look after the welfare of Naga areas which could not be included in the Naga integration due to geographical location.  Said the ‘Pan-Naga Hoho’ will be a statutory body with certain powers having separate budget, and “very unique for the Nagas”.
According to Th. Muivah, both negotiating sides however agreed to share the competencies by respecting people’s wishes on “sharing sovereign power” as defined in the competencies where both sides agreed on a peaceful co-existence. After all I have to explore…

Naga Hoho Asembly speaker said that “once the problem is settle then Nagaland Legislative Asembly will hand over all power and function to the Naga Hoho”

 

Literature Review leading to identification of the Research problem: Mostly I read News paper; like Nagaland Post, The Honbill, Morung, and Sangai Express. And there are some books available and I used for dissertation topic are as under:

  1. Dr. Horam 1975 “Naga polity” he trace the origin of the Naga administrative system and political institution of Naga society. He focuses on the political system of Nagas in relation to Naga self-determination and National Movement. He supports Naga self rule under Nagalim. He pour out his ideas in very interesting ways which is very persuasive and convincing style of writing; this help me to understand the Naga politics in more details. However, I am not completely agree with him for some reason, because of Naga political problem is very complex in nature and our issues can’t solve by India and Burma alone; the UN veto power should be interfered to settle it permanently.
  2. Osiander Andreas 2001 “Sovereignty, International Relation and the Wesphalian Myth” I was mainly focused on sovereignty and westphalian on his writing. He was talking about globalization and the sharing of sovereignty between various nations through the concept of interdependent in the modern globalised concept. According to him no nation is completely sovereign but inter-dependent to each other directly or indirectly. The concept of interdependent through sharing of power between two or more nation can be applied to the Indo-Naga peace talk on shared sovereignty in some ways. Enjoying all the sovereign right of the nation by Naga and compromising in certain areas can be very much applicable to Nagas political problem in my opinion.
  3. Crafting State-Nations, India and other Multinational Democracies by Alfred Stepan, Juanj Linz and Jogendra Yadev: in this book they are mainly discuss on the issues of nation-state in various country; like Catalonia in Spain, Scotland in England, Red Amirican In United State and Nagaland and Mijoram in northeast state of India, Jamu and Kashmir and Punjab in the north and Tamil and sri-lanka in the south. They talk about federal structure and Autonomy but the demands of Nagas are Nation state not Autonomy under Indian constitution. There has been many accord signed between Union of India and Nagas but since the demand of the Nagas were not fulfill under those agreement the movement continue till date; thereby, the concept of nation state can solve the Nagas issues but it is partially difficult from the authors perspective to settle in that stage. However, Nagas were not part of India in our history, historically speaking.
  4. Hail and blames Scato Swu, he talk about the formation of Naga Nationalism movement in Nagaland with his experience. He was the former president of Federal Government of Nagaland FGN. He claims that Naga have every right to be independence and Nagas are not Indian in Nagas History. His stories mainly focus on the struggle for independence by FGN and the joining of Th. Muivah and other in the freedom movement. His writing is bias and focus only in NNC and his world view with limited of information. All his writing was a record of his experience and understanding; he was trying to frame Nagas as nation with blur concept of nation. His writing is widely influence in present Nagaland but discarded by many Naga’s scholar and educated youngster.
  5. “The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis by Peter Leyland; The Constitution of the United Kingdom provides a topical outline of the principles and doctrines which make up the UK’s Constitution. The main themes include discussion of the history, sources, and nature of the UK’s Constitution. Chapters deal with: constitutional principles, the role of the Crown, Parliament and the electoral system, government and the executive, the constitutional role of courts, including the protection of human rights, division of powerbetween central,devolved and local government, and the European Union. The book offers an analytical discussion of the development of the Constitution, its strengths and perceived weaknesses, and the on-going reforms aimed at modernizing the Constitution. Devolution: establishing new layers of the constitution and suggests that the Union between England and Scotland.  A Scottish has own parliament and Supreme Court within the United Kingdom. The UK constitution has always been a unitary and not a federal state unlike India and United State of America.  Yet, even within unitary states, there are tensions and demands for autonomy, which is similar to Naga demand in some ways.  To meet these, the UK started a policy called as ‘devolution’. On the other hand, to meet Naga demand, Union of India started too negotiated on shared-Sovereignty. Scotland and UK model of separate parliament, supreme court and constitution with greater power of autonomy for Nagas within India can be very much applied to solve Naga political problem.
  6. Book book ” Narendra Modi and Naga Peace Accord (2015) ” Written by Oken Jeet Sandham. Extract from the book on (Shared Sovereignty) “When you say sovereignty lies with the people, then the sovereignty can only be enjoyed by thecitizens of that country, and Sovereignty belongs also to the people. But when the Sovereignty of the country is to be shared to end the Naga issue, it cannot be wrong to say that there is a two-nation theory trying to resolve their political conflicts through political negotiations.” His ideas of shared sovereignty are very relevant to the issues of Indo-Naga peace talk which is negotiating under shared sovereignty. Shared sovereignty is totally two nation theories and I agree to his ideas of sharing sovereignty in the context of Indo-Naga to solve the decade long political conflict.

Main Research Hypothesis: Share-Sovereignty is a two nation theory, shared sovereignty between India and Nagalim can bring a political solution for the oldest insurgency problem in south-east Asia, especially in northeast India. And there is a possibility of integration of all Nagas ancestral land under Pan Naga Hoho, from Manipur, Assam, Arunachal and Burma will integrate as Nagalim nation and will be living under India like UK and Scotland model by sharing the sovereign power between the two nations.

 

Research methods: I want to use quantitative method and qualitative method (mixed method), interviews method, questionnaire method.

Primary data:

  1. personal experience; I have many experience in our Naga society how the people support for Naga National movement and how the NSCN talk with Government of India. And I received much news from my friend and from social Medias.
  2. Interviews with concern people; I take a formal interview with concern people who are indirectly involved in the peace process through telephone about the issues. Type of interview I take as under:

Social leaders: Naga Hoho is the apex civil body of Naga society, Naga have more than 48 tribes under Naha Hoho where I talk around 30 tribal leabers and other social organization leaders like Naga Student Federation (NSF) and Naga Mother Association (NMA).

Interview with Naga Hoho leaders:

Question: How shared sovereignty between India and Nagalim can be function?

Naga Hoho: The negotiation is under the process; Naga want full-sovereignty but it seem not possible from Indian side. Thereby the best meeting point is shared-Sovereignty in the present context. However, Naga will have separate judiciary and administration under Pan-Naga Hoho. And once the final settlement is done then Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) will hand-over to the Naga Hoho to run the Nagalim.

Question: what is the concept of Pan-Naga Hoho and how it will govern the Nagalim? Are the NLA members willing to hand over their power to Naga Hoho?

Naga Hoho: Pan-Naga Hoho will be the head of all Naga tribal to look after the welfare of all Naga ancestral land politically but it will transform little bit from Naga Hoho, once the final settlement is done in order to govern the Nagalim. And yes! Nagaland Legislative members and other are willing to hand over their power. Thair playing the main role in the talk between Indian Government and NSCN (IM).

Most of the tribal leader I talk with has similar version that they will go with the decision of Naga Hoho; nothing new or nothing extra.

 

Nagaland Legislative Assembly members:  The president of the ruling Naga People’s Front (NPF) Dr. Shurhozelie Liezietsu said that  “They welcome the peace accord signed between Indian Government and NSCN (IM) on August 3 2015; I appeal to both parties to include all political Groups in the final settlement” He said that shared sovereignty is two nation theory according to his understanding.

Official: Interview taken to Indian official and NSCN (IM) official by Media person.

Q: NP: What does “shared sovereignty” mean in context of Indian federalism and does it imply that a Pan-Naga governance in all Naga inhabited lands?

Ravi: Both sides have acknowledged the universal principle that in a democracy, sovereignty lies with the people. Government of India has acknowledged the uniqueness of Nagas. This uniqueness will be reflected in sharing of the power.

Q: NP: There has been a history where Nagas have signed many agreements with Government of India but not a single agreement seems to have resolved the protracted Naga issue. If you manage to sign a final agreement with one group or more groups, how is it going to be different from the past agreements?

Ravi: This agreement will be on the basis of equality and mutual respect. This spirit will define its uniqueness.

NP: You have also made it clear that sovereignty (total independence) is out also ruled out integration of all Naga inhabited areas. What are the other points being discussed and negotiated between the two sides?

Ravi: Political concepts evolve through the ages. They acquire newer meanings and perspectives with time. The concepts of ‘Sovereignty’ and ‘Integration’ also have to be understood and appreciated in the contemporary context. Before advent of democracy, the sovereignty was personified in king, monarch, dictator etc. Democracy has upended the concept. It is universally agreed principle that in a democracy, sovereignty lies with the people. There is no question of Naga people giving up sovereignty. Integration too has several facets. Social, cultural and linguistic integration can be effected through administrative actions and institutions. Political integration can only be pursued through a democratic process.

Naga citizen: taking interview with different Naga people and different age group but most of them do not have much knowledge about shared soveriegnty. However, they believe that they deserve greater autonomy as Nagalim.

“A separate flag is one of 33 demands made by the NSCN-IM, which has been engaged in talks with the central government since a truce was finalised in 1997. The NSCN-IM’s demand for a separate currency has been ruled out.

VS Atem, an emissary of the NSCN-IM’s central leadership and a key figure in the talks, had told HT earlier: “If Kashmir can have a separate flag, why not Nagas? China also has separate flags for Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan.”- sources Hindustan Time Jan 30, 2016 18:37 IST.

.

People: I talk with many different people from Delhi and Bangalore; I talk to Dr. R Vashum the author of the book “Right to Self determination” he support the Shared sovereignty negotiation. Again, Mr. Oken Jeet the author of the book “Narandra Modi and Naga Peace Accord” he said that Shared sovereignty is a two nation theory and he belief that It can solve the decade long conflict.  I talk to Journalist who are expert on Naga Issues, Miss Aran, she said that Shared sovereignty is negotiating outside the constitution of India and it is two nation theory. She is determine that Modi led BJP can solve this issues.

Secondary data: Mostly I used secondary sources of data for this dissertation from newspaper, journal, blog, magazine, and some books.

“A press note from the Joint Council of the NSCN (IM), issued through the MIP affirmed its position with regard to the invitation extended for a unified approach to the Naga solution issued by Chairman Isak Chishi Swu. He asserted that the Framework Agreement is “based on the uniqueness of Naga history, which means Nagas are a free people and they have never been a part of Union of India or Burma or any other power either by conquest or consent.” It further stated: “both parties agreed that sovereignty, according to universal principle of democracy, lies with the people, not government or monarch. And that sovereignty of Nagas lies with Naga people and sovereignty of India lies with Indian people.” However, it added that both parties agreed to share sovereign power for an enduring and peaceful co-existence. The Agreement also says that land and its resources totally belong to Nagas, it stated.” – DIMAPUR, DECEMBER 23 (MExN).

“As mandated by the people NSCN has been faithfully working for the cause with total dedication till date. It put up tough resistance against the aggressors with conviction and courage when situation demanded. NSCN leaders went abroad to many countries for political campaigns and attended even international conferences to speak on political situations in Nagalim for a number of times. As invited by the Government of India (GoI), NSCN is engaged in political dialogues with the GoI. After 18 years long tough negotiations the GoI and NSCN have signed the historic ‘framework agreement’ on the 3rd of August 2015. GoI represents India whereas NSCN represents the Nagas (Nagalim). It is a political talk between the two entities.

The ‘framework agreement’ is based on the uniqueness of Naga history, which means Nagas are a free people and they have never been a part of Union of India or Burma or any other power either by conquest or consent. Both the parties agreed that sovereignty, according to the universal principle of democracy lies with the people, not government or monarch. And that sovereignty of the Nagas lies with the Naga people and sovereignty of India lies with the Indian people. However, with a view to solving the Indo-Naga political problem both the parties agreed to share sovereign power for enduring and peaceful co-existence of the two entities. The agreement also says that land and its resources of both below and above the earth totally belong to the Nagas. The Nagas will have the right to exercise their sovereign power over their territories. Nagas are the master of their land.”-  NSCN (I-M) joint council statement MIP: 27 Dec. 2015 11:15 PM IST (Nagaland Post).

It was a ‘framework pact’ with NSCN (IM)
“Rajnath Singh says security and police forces have controlled the insurgency
situation in the North-East. Security and police forces have controlled insurgency in the North-East: Rajnath

After Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in August that a peace accord has been signed with the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) to end the decades-old Naga insurgency, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh on Friday referred the accord as a “framework agreement” and said it would help in resolving the Naga problem.

This is the first time that the government has used the term “framework agreement” for the peace accord. Mr. Singh, who is attending the three-day DGPs’ conference in Rann of Kutch, Gujarat, mentioned this during the opening session speech he delivered in the presence of Mr. Modi and around 250 top policemen of the country.

Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) chief R.N Ravi, who is also the interlocutor for Naga peace talks, had signed the agreement on behalf of the Government of India with the NSCN (IM) on August 3 in a much-publicised ceremony where Mr. Modi and the Home Minister were present. The Home Ministry, which is the nodal department on the North-East issues, was kept out of the entire process and Chief Ministers of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur accused the government of keeping them out of the loop of the entire process.

When contacted, Mr. Ravi told The Hindu, “We never said it was a peace accord, some people loosely refer to it as an accord. It is a framework agreement and the minor details are still being worked out. We have agreed on the basic fundamental ground on which the accord would be signed.” The Twitter handle of Mr. Singh posted, “HM expressed hope that the Framework agreement between NSCN-IM and the Centre would help in resolving the Naga problem.” – By VIJAITA SINGH senior journalist to Nagas’ Right to Self-Determination, World Support Group December 20 at 10:06pm.

 

Ethical considerations: There are people among I talk and interview with refuse to mention their name for some reason, and I have to respect it.

References:

  1. http://morungexpress.com
  2. http://www.nagalandpost.com
  3. http://www.thesangaiexpress.com

4.http://nagalandpost.com/Showstory.aspx?npoststoryiden=TkVXUzEwMDA4NTUyNA%3D%3D-BXURvU29sLs%3D.

  1. catchnews.com
    http://www.nagalandpost.com/PostMor
  2. Oken Jeet Sandham, Narendra Modi and Naga Peace Accord (2015)
  3. The Constitution of the United Kingdom: by Peter Leyland;
  4. Crafting State-Nations, India and other Multinational Democracies by Alfred Stepan, Juanj Linz and Jogendra Yadev.
  5. Dr. Horam 1975 “Naga polity”
  6. Osiander Andreas 2001 “Sovereignty, International Relation and the Wesphalian Myth”
  7. Vashum, R, Nagas‟ Right to self Determination, Mittal Publications, New Delhi.

 

Annexure:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s