On 6 April 2004, the Nagaland Chief Minister, N Rio, said that the Nagas should settle for economic sovereignty if political sovereignty remained elusive. There has been no comment on this statement by the influential power centers in the state. However, statements that stop short of endorsing the demand for political sovereignty has been frowned upon in the past, and termed as somewhat treacherous to the long and arduous Naga struggle of five decades. Coming from a political figure who has been considered to be close to the Isak-Muivah faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM), the statement is bound to make the leaders of the Naga struggle rethink their strategy.

Earlier, leaders who tried to propound an alternate theory for the solution of the Naga problem have fallen out of favour with the NSCN-IM. The Shillong Accord signed between the Union government and a section of the Naga National Council (NNC) in 1975 was not acceptable to the outfit and was viewed as a surrender of the Naga cause to the Indian government. The former Chief Minister, S C Jamir, was criticized by the outfit for having suggested in a booklet titled, ‘Bedrock of Naga Society’ that Nagas had no history of independence. Recently, the state Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President, Hokishe Sema, was taken to task by the NSCN-IM for saying “economic sovereignty should be the priority for the Nagas”.

The idea of economic sovereignty propounded by the leaders is yet to emerge. At the outset, it probably would mean:

·         Greater financial grants from the central government for the development of the State.

·         Independent powers to the State to chart out a programme of economic development.

·         Independent powers for the state to conduct not only its internal financial transactions but also authority to enter into financial dealings externally.

The Union government has been generous in terms of providing financial grants especially after the installation of the Democratic Alliance of Nagaland (DAN) government in 2003. Prime Minister Vajpayee announced a financial grant of more than Rs.1000 crores for Nagaland during his October 2003 visit to the State. However, it is not clear if such generosity would be sustained if Nagaland is to become economically sovereign. Additionally, the idea of economic sovereignty, for all practical purposes would amount to a breach of the sovereignty of the Indian State and would therefore be unacceptable.  

However, there can be a middle way, which, if it finds favour with the NSCN-IM, can be pursued by the Union government. In July 2003, media reports indicated that a Union government proposal had been made to provide a statutory role to the apex tribal body, the Naga Hoho, with a provision to receive independent financial grants from the Centre. Due to the opposition of many organizations, this plan was aborted. This proposal needs a reviewing whereby the Union government would grant statutory status to various power centers in the state with independent financial powers. The State government can act as a coordinating agency. While not compromising on the sovereignty of the Indian State, the proposal could provide the various organizations in Nagaland a stake in the rebuilding and development of their homeland. 

The idea of political sovereignty, which has been the moving force behind the Naga struggle, has failed to unite the different factions. Even though the NSCN-IM has been speaking of the territorial integration of the Naga inhabited areas and the independence of the Nagas, over the years there remains a considerable division between these Naga factions.  So stark has been the divide among the factions that no unanimity exists even on matters like the celebration of the Naga Republic Day. Recently, the Panger faction of the Naga National Council (NNC-P) criticized the NSCN-IM for having celebrated the Republic Day on 21 March, instead of 22 March. The NNC-P even took the NNC-Adino faction to task for trying to celebrate the late AZ Phizo’s birth centenary on 16 May, which according to the outfit falls on 4 May.

One tends to compare the Naga struggle for independence with the insurgency in Mizoram, which was no less violent, and was pursued with nationalist passion. However, with the signing of the peace agreement in 1986, the Mizos renounced violence for good and continue to enjoy the fruits of peace. Similarly, it would be wise for the Naga organizations to rethink their strategy, which has given them very little till now. It will be difficult to change the course of the long and arduous struggle no doubt. But, if economic benefit to the common people is the objective of the struggle, the time has arrived for seeking a fresh course of action.