Political plurality

Nagaland lives with a deep internal contradiction that goes to the heart of its identity crisis. The belief system that guides public life remains rooted in an ancient idea- might is right. Yet this clashes with what Nagas, as Christians, claim to believe-that right should be might. This tension between what people say they stand for and what they actually accept reveals a society unable to reconcile its own values. This confusion runs even deeper when looked at from the point of view of the political plurality. People speak with reverence about the 1951 plebiscite, treating it as a sacred moment when they chose a different path. Yet at the same time, they ignore the path taken at the crossroads. The political plurality is a dichotomy ; rejecting India in 1951 and choosing the advantages of statehood under India. The most telling proof of this contradiction lies in the 5-yearly referendum. Since 1963, Nagas have faithfully marked their ballots every five years in state elections. If people truly rejected the Indian Union and saw no legitimacy in its democratic system, why then, participate in elections, accept election results and form governments, every five years? This five-yearly voting is itself a statement- that deviates from the narrative about 1951. People are saying with their thumbs what their mouths deny. Ultimately, the political issue become a tool, pulled out whenever political passions need stirring. Today, like the Plebiscite that is replicated to a 5-yearly referendum; the 16 Point Agreement could well be replicated with another agreement. Thus, the political issue becomes useful only when it serves immediate interests, not when it requires honest consistency. Over seventy years of armed conflict have produced immense suffering, yet this suffering is often weaponised for narrow gains rather than the interest of the people. Some speak of unity and war crimes committed by outsiders, but they remain willfully blind to the disunity within the political movement which has fragmented into more than thirty factions, each claiming to uphold the true principles of the struggle. This fragmentation reveals a bitter truth- that the movement itself has become more about power, territory, and personal interest than about any shared vision. More troubling still is the actions of those claiming to represent the national aspiration, whose acts are inimical to society’s peace, welfare and security. Extortion, illegal taxation, kidnapping for ransom, and violent coercion are being justified under the banner of the national struggle. These have are replayed again and again even in the present context. The movement that was born from resistance to unjust force has unfortunately, become a vehicle for unjust force. The very structures that emerged to protect Naga interests now prey upon Naga citizens. As long as leaders and some sections refuse to acknowledge that their narratives inspire sources of such actions, nothing will change. As long as people accept this denial and continue the cycle-voting while denying legitimacy, seeking state benefits while rejecting statehood, mourning war crimes while tolerating new ones-Nagaland remains trapped. Real reform requires brutal honesty. It means admitting that movements can become corrupted. It means recognising that invoking history to justify present injustice in whatever form, is dishonest. Until Nagas choose principle over convenience, until they demand that their leaders practice what they preach, this chameleon-speak will continue to be a bane on public life. Change begins when people stop tolerating the contradiction and demand that words and actions finally align.