He was barely in his thirties, when this strapping young man trekked all the way to China braving dense jungles, treacherous passes and hostile forces all around. More than 30 years later, the magic still works. The twinkle in his eyes unmistakable, the general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN), Thuingaleng Muivah, retains a charm and sharp intellect that makes him the leader of the most potent and dreaded insurgent organisation in the Northeast.
Back again in Nagalim, he does not subscribe to the view that he has returned from "exile." He argues that both he and NSCN chairman Isak Chishi Swu had gone out on a "national mission" and they have only come back from there. Instead, he repeatedly expresses his happiness at the "unflinching support" he perceives is coming from the people.
The prime minister of the underground Government of the People’s Republic of Nagalim (GPRN) is clear and consistent about his perception of the Naga political movement and is committed to his goal- that of a sovereign Nagalim. He is a gentleman. He might have denounced Zapu Phizo as a traitor following the Shillong Accord of 1975, but he still refers to the harbinger of Naga insurrectionism as "Uncle Phizo." He is himself referred to by the younger lot in the NSCN as "Uncle Muivah." The consistency holds.
Muivah desists from calling himself a Communist, but admits the influence of revolutionary philosophy on the Christian socialism expounded by his organisation. He says one cannot deny the truth and goes on to explain that Karl Marx’s interpretation and analysis of society was so correct that it cannot be ignored.
Following are excerpts from a tête-à-tête between Muivah and Subir Ghosh, the same evening as the former and Isak Swu addressed the press conference at Kuhoxu in Nagaland. Here he talks about other issues as well and elaborates on certain contentious points raised at the press conference.
Subir Ghosh: There is a perceptible difference between the talks of the Sixties and that of the Nineties. What lessons did you learn from the previous discussions so that the current negotiations are not abortive once again?
Thuingaleng Muivah: I would rather say that to quite an extent our approach last time had not been genuine. It was not, objectively speaking, to the point.
SG: Except the NSCN chairman Isak Chishi Swu - the factor common to the two rounds of talks - everything else is different.
TM: The general feeling of the people too is different this time. One has to, many a time, follow the wishes of the times. This time the feeling was that we should also try to understand the difficulties of the Indian government. So we are also trying to understand their problems when it comes to our relations with them.
SG: You outright rejected the idea of a Bhutan-type protectorate arrangement. Why?
TM: Y.Gundevia, the chief delegate, had come up with this suggestion last time. This time too people have been talking about it, but we never raised the issue at all.
SG: It has been asked over and over again in recent times about the stands of succeeding Indian prime ministers. You categorically said at the press conference that there has been no shifts in their stand. Yet, do you believe that an ultra-nationalist party like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would ever agree to part with even an inch of India’s territory?
TM: Their approach is understandable. But the basic point is that Nagalim has never been a part of Indian territory. Nagas have never agreed either by conquest or by consent to be part of India. So from our point of view, we are not actually demanding anything from India.
SG: The party at the helm of affairs has been accused of persecuting Christians elsewhere in India. Many of its leaders have been making a lot of noises about Christians in the Northeast. So far they have not tried anything in Nagaland. But if they do?
TM: Be it so, they will have to face the reaction.
SG: Face the music?
TM: (Smiles) Yeah, face the music.
SG: Now, about something which is related. On my way here, I saw the paddy fields along the roads to this camp to be swarming with Bangladeshis. They are neither Indians nor Nagas. Don’t you think they must move back?
TM: You are right. All infiltrators - be it Indians or Bangladeshis- must be checked. If we don’t do that we will be wiped out.
SG: Checking future infiltration is okay, but what about those who are already here? They have captured a large part of Assam. They can do the same with Nagaland.
TM: We have to drive them out.
SG: When do you propose to do that? They are multiplying so fast. Now there are 2 lakh Bangladeshis in the Dimapur area. By the time the Naga issue is resolved, there might be 5 lakh of these illegal migrants. Or maybe more.
TM: Those aiding and abetting infiltrators will be held responsible.
SG: These people are tilling the soil, and, in effect, rendering Nagas idle. How do you plan to sort this problem out?
TM: Your question is pertinent. If we do not deal with the problem seriously today, the danger will be too big tomorrow. Nagas will have to understand and realise the importance of dealing with this.
SG: But shouldn’t this start right away?
TM: You are correct. But if we start pushing them back physically right now, there will be a big loss of lives. At the moment, we would not like there to be any bloodshed.
SG: There seems to be little realisation of the dangers posed by these infiltrators among overground politicians as well.
TM: These immigrants are usually employed by the puppet leaders, who end up amassing a lot of wealth.
SG: In 1993, it was quite a recognition for the NSCN, at that point of time definitely a violent organisation, to be accepted into the fold of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) which advocates non-violence.
TM: When they came to know of our historical background, they were pretty convinced. They felt it was a genuine case. It was a hard time anyway, since they used to be very critical about accepting new members. But when they came to know for sure the genuineness of our history, they were very glad. They said as much that our’s was a unique case - not like that of many others. And they said they would continue to support the Naga cause.
SG: Were they in any way influential or helpful in your coming to the negotiating table?
TM: Yes, in a way. They helped us not in the talks, but encouraged us outside the talks.
SG: You also tried to speak at the European Parliament. What happened? Have you spoken there?
TM: We have not. But we have met many members and explained our case.
SG: It is said that Indian officials sabotaged your attempts.
TM: They were very alarmed indeed. India is a very big and influential country. They could manage to have things their way. But we have many more friends now (laughs).
SG: Talking about friends and enemies: isn’t unity among Naga organisations imperative for talks with the Indian government?
TM: Unity among the people is essential. But unity with the troops who have been utilised by the Indian government is not necessary. It won’t solve the problem. The support of the people is sufficient to deal with all problems. We are not bothered about a kind of unity which is not based on principles at all. So, I don’t see such a necessity.
SG: Wasn’t this unity issue thrashed out at the consultative body meeting?
TM: No. But, of course, someone did raise the unity question. But we gave sufficient explanation: that unity is required among the people and so unity must to be there. But on what lines…..? On correct lines. On the basis that will settle the right of the Nagas and their politics. But not the type of unity with people who have already sold out the nation.
SG: Will you ever agree to a unity by compromising your preponderant position on the Naga movement?
TM: We will never do that. For the sake of unity if we have to forego the achievements we have already made, it would be very foolish. We will not do that. Yes, we do need unity - but among the people. And not with wrong groups. The support of the people is sufficient. Yes, there were suggestions about unity at the meeting, but our explanation served the purpose. They understood us. It was clear.
SG: You continue to say that you will never compromise on the demand for Naga sovereignty. But will India ever accept a sovereign Nagalim?
TM: India will naturally have its own difficulties. But those difficulties have been created by India itself. Nagalim was never a part of India either by conquest or by consent. There is no reason why India should have apprehensions. India has got to admit the fact that the people of Nagalim have never accepted Indian constitution. That is why Nagalim is being occupied by force today. But that is not our problem. On our part, we will not compromise on the issue. So the problem is there. If only the Indian government could realise that Nagas have their own right. It is their obligation to see to it that this right is recognised. And there is a peaceful solution. On our part we are prepared to appreciate India’s difficulties.
SG: With such basic fundamental differences in views, how can the talks progress?
TM: The gaps and difficulties involved have been mostly created by the Indians themselves, not by us. If they are sincere about a solution, they must admit the difficulties created by themselves. Then we can be closer to each other. Then we can explore further possibilities. But there are some fundamental points. The Nagas have the obligation of understanding the problems of the Indian government. At the same time, the government of India must recognise the right of the Nagas.
SG: Have the talks progressed at all? Or is it just a ceasefire which gives both sides some respite?
TM: I would rather claim that there has been progress. In the talks we have made our position amply clear. But the basic question : we understand that it will be difficult for the Indian government to recognise fully our right - to be completely sovereign. When I say this I don’t mean that our stand will be anything short of sovereignty. The sovereignty of the people of Nagaland over their territory is not questionable. - because we cannot part with it. But that does not mean that we can remained sealed off from the world. Our neighbours would still be there.
SG: What can really be the final solution?
TM: They have to recognise our right and seek the best of relations and commitments with us. For our part, we can ensure them that our existence as an independent nation will never be a danger to India. I think that is something very big, important. It is for India to realise the significance of the change in our assessment.
SG: What about the issue of Greater Nagaland comprising the Naga-inhabited contiguous areas of India and Burma?
TM: We don’t have a Greater or Smaller Nagaland. We have our Nagaland.
SG: What about the reactions in states like Manipur and Assam?
TM: The reactions might be there. But the trends of history cannot be stopped. The Assamese have the right to determine their future. So have the Nagas. The Meiteis - let them decide their own future. We will support them. But they must also know that the Nagas too have the right to decide their own future. So that settles the problem.
SG: Do you have a time frame in mind?
TM: Yes. In a way. When it becomes imminent that there is no possibility to come to a solution, the ceasefire will not be extended.
SG: And you will return to the jungles...
TM: Of course. We may not like to. But we will be forced to.
