Empty Hand Revolution

Development of the Naga Worldview

Wide ranging opinions have been given for the decay of Naga society. Common thought within the Indian government points to drug and alcohol abuse, as well as inter-factional violence, as proof the Naga aren’t and have never been capable of self-governance.

It is true, drugs are crossing the border into Nagalim, especially from Burma. It is also true that revenge killings are common among the Naga. The once unified Naga National Council, led by the highly influential Angami Phizo, dissolved in 1953. Two decades later, even Phizo himself became a divisive figure.

 When Nagas are asked about these troubling issues, the most common culprit is the Indian divide and rule policy. Due to the recent and fragile nature of Naga nationalism, it is no wonder the government of India should attempt such a strategy.

Nagas had no concept of national identity until the attempted siege by the British. The invasion of their homeland by outsiders forced Nagas to temporarily set aside tribal differences and see each other as brothers. Before the British arrived, Nagas had no specific term for their homeland, or for themselves.

Some of the tribes had gone generations or longer without interaction between each other. The traditional hilltop construction of villages for defensive purposes led to natural isolation. This isolation facilitated the rise of hundreds of dialects, some unintelligible to others. In short, Nagas didn’t know each other, outside of local skirmishes and conflicts, until the British thrust them together.

But the Naga people learned quickly. Nagas became the Naga for the first time. Ethnically Mongoloid, they shared very little in common with any of their neighbors, certainly not with their Indian neighbors to the south. Their philosophical, social and spiritual beliefs set them apart even further. No matter the differences existing between Naga tribes, those differences remained minuscule in comparison to their invaders.

Thus, as a hostile invader, it made sense for the Indian government to attack the infantile links between Naga tribes and regions with a series of devastating political moves dating back to 1963.

Before going further, it should be pointed out that depicting the impact of these policies is the easy part. Placing responsibility and blame is much harder. Determining where the onus must be placed on India as a neighboring bully, and where responsibility must be placed on the Naga to overcome any and all aggressive geopolitical policy is a complicated matter of personal opinion—one for another book.

In December 1963, following what has become known as the 16-point agreement, India formed Nagaland, the 16th state of the Indian Union. By encompassing only a fraction of the land occupied by the Naga people, the newly formed state created a new division. In 1972, the international boundary between India and Burma was formalized. Running smack through the middle of several villages, the border divided the Naga again, this time between two nations.

In 1967, some leaders of the Federal Government of Nagaland (the successor of the NNC) broke off with Indian support to form the Revolutionary Military Government. Two years later this entity dissolved and its members become employees of the Indian government.

The Nagaland Legislative Assembly was constituted during this period as yet another rival to the underground Federal Government of Nagaland. Often during the 60’s, and with the apparent assistance of the Indian government, lines were drawn and sides were taken between warring Naga factions.

After nearly a decade of war, some of these Naga factions began to court the Indian constitution. For the first time, existence within the Indian Republic became more appealing. It has been suggested by rivals and critics that these Nagas were blinded by power and affluence from the hand of India. And perhaps some Nagas sought to benefit at their brothers’ expense.

In that vein, the Central Indian Government struck its most resounding victory in 1975 with the signing of the Shillong Accord. This agreement has become such a powder keg among Nagas, that uncovering its true historical roots seems impossible only thirty-eight years later. Each of the current Naga factions interprets the event differently.

The content of the accord is clear enough. It called upon the Naga to accept the constitution of India without condition and to lay down arms. It laid forth the same basic demand India had made from the beginning—join the republic.

The only other thing everyone can agree upon is that the accord was signed in Shillong on November 11th, 1975 by the Indian governor of Nagaland and “members of the underground’s leadership.” Beyond that, everything becomes fuzzy. Many key members of Naga leadership were absent, including Phizo, who had been forced into exile years earlier.

Phizo remained mysteriously silent on the signing of the accord until his death in 1990. Theories abound on why he refused to endorse or refute the accord. For several years Nagas were cast into total confusion. Had they surrendered to the Central Indian Government or not?

In 1980, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) arose in attempt to put the Shillong Accord to rest. Isak Chishi Swu, Thuingaleng Muivah and S.S. Khaplang served as the founding leaders. They derided the Shillong Accord as a betrayal. But by 1988 the newly formed NSCN had split to form the NSCN-IM (Isak and Muivah) and the NSCN-K (Khaplang).

More factions exist today. Many more. While evidence has been uncovered that the Indian government regularly endorses one against the others, Nagas have proven they don’t always need India’s help to divide themselves.

It was under these divided and contentious conditions that Cosmo Zimik first committed his life to Jesus the Christ. A product of these hostilities, Cosmo left northeast India in 1990, at the age of nineteen, and traveled to Delhi for university. There, he experienced his first wholesale exposure to Indian culture. There, his newfound spiritual beliefs came into direct conflict with his cultural worldview.