The pulse of rallies

The public rally in Dimapur on November 18 drew quite an impressive turnout, remarkable given that several apex tribal organisations had directed their subordinate bodies to abstain. The size of the gathering underscored a persistent irony as decades of appeals for Naga unity have yielded little beyond repetition of resolutions. Despite countless resolutions and pleas, the November 18 rally concluded with the familiar refrain-a demand on the Centre for an early solution to the Naga political issue. Over the past two decades, Nagaland has witnessed countless rallies and meetings-initiated variously by governments, legislators, NGOs, tribal bodies, church leaders, and civil society. Each gathering has carried the stated aim of fostering unity to press for a solution. The state government has formed legislators’ forums and consultative committees, positioning itself as facilitator. The pursuit for solution involves getting the groups on board in order to evolve one agreement from the two agreements signed in 2015 and 2017. Consultative meetings, though outwardly constructive, have become exercises in deflection. Elected leaders urge the public to unite the public, in turn, call upon the state and Centre to deliver; Delhi shifts the responsibility back to the state and the factions. The mantra of “unity” to facilitate a political solution has been instrumentalized to serve as the foundational logic for the “oppositionless government” experiment initiated in 2015- which continued the after the 2018 election and was sealed by the merger of two regional parties. On its part, the state government has yet to share with the public what Delhi has agreed to, what it has rejected, and why the agreements remain stalled. Without clarity, consultative exercises risk becoming hollow rituals. The size of rallies, the passion of speeches, or the frequency of meetings cannot substitute for decisive action. Rallies reflect the pulse of the people, but they cannot substitute the role of the highest forum of the people-the state assembly which has the constitutional mandate to heed and respond to the pulse of their people. It is there, and only there, that the journey towards resolution must find its end. It requires no profound political insight to recognize that the people remain the ultimate authority over every organization. Their voice is not a suggestion to be audited, but a mandate that demands execution. The Naga political issue predates statehood and has remained the narrative of Nagaland politics for over six decades. A rare chance for settlement emerged in 1964, when the first ceasefire was signed between the Government of India and the Naga National Council (NNC). That process collapsed after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi refused to entertain any reference to sovereignty-a moment history records as a squandered opportunity. At the time, there was only one faction. By the second ceasefire in 1997, four factions had surfaced. Today, nearly thirty exist, with fragmentation deepening year after year. Also the Naga political issue has become complex as it is not confined to Nagaland only but involves the future of the Nagas of Manipur. Securing an all-encompassing solution is imperative, yet it remains contingent upon a difficult prerequisite where the people must accept the ground realities of the negotiation. This outcome cannot be imposed but requires reconciling aspirations with political limitations. Only by acknowledging these realities can the stakeholders transition to an environment conducive to peace and progress.