Memorandum to PMO of India

To
Shri. Narendra Modi
The Hon’ble Prime Minster
Government of India

Subject: Memorandum

Hon’ble Sir,

We bring Warm Greetings from the Office of Naga Students’ Federation

*1) About Naga Students’ Federation:*
The Naga Students Federation (NSF) was formed in 1947 founded on the vision and sacrifices of educated Naga youths of that time, who felt the need to have an organized body through which collective aspiration could be articulated and at the same time respond to issues confronting the students in particular and Nagas in general. It came to being at a time when there were only few Nagas who could apprehend futuristic possibilities with clear political and social acumen.
Since then, the Naga Students’ Federation has been striving for the larger interest of the Nagas-unwavering in its stand and persevering in promoting the rights of the Nagas. NSF has been standing firm without compromising on any issues, according to their correct perspectives, which are a matter of concern for the Nagas as a people, irrespective of tribes or divisive elements that may prevail from time to time.
It has always been the standpoint of the federation that Nagas in general would live under one administrative umbrella under a sovereign government and that the stand of the federation has always been integration of all Naga homeland and sovereignty in line with our motto ‘For Unified Lim and Glory of Nagas’.

*2) Brief Background of the Ongoing Peace process:*
The journey of Naga Struggle has never been an easy road. However, after a prolong military confrontation, the NSCN and GOI entered into second ceasefire on 1st August, 1997; with the initiatives for a peaceful resolution to the indo-Naga conflict. The basis of present political dialogues between the Government of India and NSCN representing the Naga people are a) without any pre-condition b) at the highest level and c) in third countries.
On June 14, 2001 in Bangkok it was re-affirmed that the ceasefire agreement is between the Government of India and NSCN as two entities without territorial limits. The process was further strengthened on 11th July, 2002, the then Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee declared recognition of the ‘unique history and situation of the Nagas’ by the GOI. This agreement is land mark in the historical and political journey of the Nagas as India accepted for the first time that Nagas were never a part of India either by conquest or by consent of the Naga people. In addition, it recognizes that, the prevailing situation in Nagalim is political in nature and not that of law and order problem of India, thus, requiring political solution. Hectic negotiations for eighteen (18) years culminated to the historic signing of Framework Agreement between the GOI and NSCN on August 3rd, 2015. Thereafter, the seven (7) NNPGs were joined the talk for an inclusive peace process on September 27th 2017.

*3) Resentment against R N Ravi’s dual role and his conduct thereafter*
R N Ravi in his dual role as the GOI interlocutor as well as the Governor of Nagaland was viewed with skepticism by the Naga people at large. However, the federation refrained from making our disagreement public hoping that he would discharge his dual duty with the highest degree of integrity which, to our utter dismay, was not to be.
R N Ravi has been indulging in rhetoric words and practices which has resulted in much chaos and confusion in the Naga society. Though his cunningly concocted attempt to divide the Naga society into ‘primary stakeholders’ and ‘secondary stakeholders’ was an utter failure, he has gone about painting a glossy picture of the same through print and electronic media.
It has come to light through various sources and media houses that the Indian interlocutor has been adopting the practice of twisting and misinterpreting the words enshrined in the historic framework agreement against agreed terms and principles to suit his political overlords. Such a practice is inimical to the unique history and legitimate rights of the Naga people. It has also become crystal clear to the Naga people that GOI is approaching the peace process from a bureaucratic lens which is leading to the misinterpretation of compentencies that has been mutually worked out so far between the entities.

*4) Deadline in the negotiation process*
The Indo-Naga peace process has been ongoing since the last 22 years making much progress. However, the recent development wherein the GOI interlocutor has been resorting to imposing a uniteral deadline of 31st October’ 19 upon the Naga negotiating team is against the universally accepted principle of a peaceful and mutually agreed negotiation. No honorable solution can be brought about if one of the teams to the negotiation starts to throw their weight around and tries to impose the same upon the opposite party. More so, the projected deadline has been responsible for much pain and has thrown the Naga society into further chaos which is totally the opposite of what the peace process seeks to achieve, i.e. permanent peace and tranquility in the Naga homeland.
The federation therefore seeks the intervention of your good office in advising the interlocutor to refrain from holding the hard earn peace process to the ransom of time.

*5) NSF and other civil organizations sidelined in the present consultative process*
It is an undeniable fact that the NSF is the oldest pan Naga civil society organization formed to represent the voice of the Naga people. It is also the fact that the federation is older than even the Union of India. However, in the recent series of consultative meets, the federation has been left out as an uninvited guest thereby depriving the Naga students and youths of the opportunity to express their aspirations and desires from the impending solution to the protracted Indo-Naga political issue. We must admit that our sentiments have been deeply hurt by the non-invitation by Shri. R N Ravi, the GOI interlocutor to the Peace talk and current Governor of Nagaland. NSF is not against any organization or individuals invited for consultation, however, as the main stakeholder representing the voices of those who will inherit ‘the solution, it is unimaginable for the consultation process to be a mandated one without the NSF.

*6) Economic packages alone is no solution at all*
The sacrifices of many Nagas whether they are dead or still alive, is not a struggle for Naga identity alone; it is also a struggle for self determination, a struggle against the imposition of alien culture and values upon us, a struggle against the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the forces determined to keep us subjugated.
It is in this background that the NSF made its standpoint crystal clear that Economic packages or monetary assistance cannot purchase the rights of the Naga people. Rather, the GOI should not hesitate from allowing the Naga people to retain their legitimate rights.
Further, the Naga people have come a long way by denouncing the 16th Point Agreement or the Shillong Accord and that any sort of agreement that is going to be signed between the GOI and Naga negotiators should not be mere reaffirmation or expansion of 16 Point Agreements.

*7) Conclusion*
In the backdrop of the above given history and position, the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) hereby demands your good office that:
1) The Unique Naga Identity be recognized through the Naga National flag which is dear to the hearts and minds of the Naga people.
2) The Government of India (GOI) to honor the 3rd August Framework Agreement both in letter and in spirit as it was signed by both the entities in the presence of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.
3) Solution to the protracted indo-Naga political issue should be inclusive, honorable and acceptable basing on the uniqueness of Naga History.
4) GOI should focus on ‘mutually negotiated solution’ instead of ‘imposed solution’.
5) GOI should desist from provoking the situation by sending Indian Armies to Naga homeland and issuing statement of threat.

The Naga Students Federation takes our stand to make it succinctly and explicitly clear that the federation for all times to come continue to pursue the Pan Naga youth aspiration of integration and sovereignty through a democratic process. The Federation shall continue to stand by its own identity and principles laid down by its founding fathers in the larger interest of the Nagas.
We pray that the right wisdom will prevail and will bring lasting peace and progress to the Naga people.

Copy to:
1) Eno. Antonio Guterres Secretary General, United Nations (UN), New York
2) Ralph Bunche, Secretary General, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples’ Organization (UNPO), Brussells, Belgium
3) Dr. Frans Welman, Secretary, Naga International Support Centre (NISC) Amsterdam
4) Guard File
Sd/- President, Naga Students’ Federation
Sd/- President, Anal Lenruwl Tangpi (ALT)
Sd/- President, Angami Students’ Union (ASU)
Sd/- President, Ao Kaketshir Mungdang (AKM)
Sd/- President, All Zeliangrong Students’ Union (AZSU)
Sd/- President, Chakhesang Students’ Union (CSU)
Sd/- President, Lotha Students’ Union (LSU)
Sd/- President, Lamkang Kurchuknao Kunpun (LKK)
Sd/- President, Mao Students’ Union (MSU)
Sd/- President, Maram Students’ Union (MKS)
Sd/- President, Maring Students’ Union (MSU)
Sd/- President, Mongsang Naga Students’ Union (STS)
Sd/- President, Moyon Naga Students’ Union (TTBR)
Sd/- President, Poumai Naga Tsiidoumai Me (PNTM)
Sd/- President, Pochury Students’ Union (PSU)
Sd/- President, Rengma Students’ Union (RSU)
Sd/- President, Sumi Kiphimi kuqhakulu (SKK)
Sd/- President, Tangkhul Katamnao Saklong (TKS)
Sd/- President, All Naga Students’ Association Manipur (ANSAM)
Sd/- President, All Nagaland College Students’ Union

Treading cautiously on the final Naga peace agreement

 

*The Hindu*

M.P. Nathanael
OCTOBER 24, 2019 00:05 IST

The Centre should not be rigid in its stance
Around the time that the Centre announced the abrogation of special status for Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under Article 370, there was a flutter of anxiety, bordering on panic, in the North-Eastern States, particularly in Nagaland, which enjoys certain special privileges under Article 371(A) of the Constitution. The State’s Governor, R.N. Ravi, assuaged the angst through assurances that there would be no tampering with Article 371(A).
Given that J&K Governor Satya Pal Malik had given a similar assurance to the denizens of that State when former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah met him two days before the constitutional change was announced, the Naga people are justifiably sceptical about the statements of their Governor that Article 371(A) is a “solemn commitment to the people of Nagaland…” and that they “don’t have to worry at all.”

Separate flag, Constitution
For reasons best known to the concerned officials in the government and the signatories on behalf of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah), the Framework Agreement, which was signed with much fanfare in the presence of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015, has remained under wraps. Was there something in the agreement that was hindering its disclosure? Perhaps it was a clause regarding a separate flag and Constitution for Nagaland? Could the Centre have strategised that the final agreement for Nagaland would only be announced after the decision on J&K, so that the latter could serve as a precedent event and render reversal of any aspects of the Naga agreement — including clauses on its flag and Constitution — impossible?

Herein lies the crux of the matter. While the Nagas maintain that “the Naga national flag is the symbol of the recognised Naga entity… the Constitution of the Nagas is the book form of the recognised sovereignty,” the Centre has conveyed its firm stand that the matter stands rejected.
Meanwhile, akin to actions taken in J&K, leaves of all government officials including police personnel have been cancelled and the State put on alert. While the Naga National Political Groups (NNPG), an umbrella organisation of seven insurgent groups, has consented to be a signatory to the agreement for the time being, it has asserted that the Naga Constitution, must be drafted by a committee of distinguished personalities from every Naga tribe. Though the NNPG does not distance itself from the final agreement, it holds the view that such a Constitution could be drafted subsequently. Currently, to meet the deadline of October 31, the agreement seems to be getting pushed forward, with the Centre hopeful that the talks slated for October 24 will be decisive and final.

However, with the NSCN (I-M) obdurate in its stand of having a separate flag and Constitution, the situation could take a turn for the worse. In a reference to the armed outfit of NSCN (I-M), the Centre has categorically stated that talks at gunpoint are not acceptable and has directed all armed outfits including the NSCN (I-M) to decide upon a date for surrender of all arms in their possession. While the other outfits like NSCN (Khaplang), NSCN (Unification) and NSCN (Reformation) may readily agree to surrender their arms, the NSCN (I-M) may not give up as easily, unless of course the prospect of governmental berths being offered in the Nagaland Assembly might be allurement enough for it to do so.

The Centre also could do well to step back from its rigid position of forcing an agreement that a major political stakeholder is not willing to ink. The government will have to tread cautiously in tackling the situation lest a variant of the pre-1997 militancy returns to the State. That would be a retrograde development, especially given the last 22 years of hard-fought peace.

M.P. Nathanael is a retired Inspector General of Police, CRPF

NMA objects to ‘policy of exclusion’

 

DIMAPUR, OCT 23
Affirming its commitment towards an ‘inclusive and just peace’ that respects Naga aspirations and long years of struggle, the Naga Mothers’ Association (NMA) has raised objection to what it described as “the policy of exclusion” of civil society organisations like Naga Hoho, NMA, NSF and NPMHR by the State agencies and the Interlocutor for the Naga Peace talks. In a press release, NMA asserted that as women and mothers they have suffered as victims of the conflict, but also made their contributions to peace making and peace building.

As regards, NMA has appealed to Naga leaders and brothers from different Naga political groups to come together in peace and speak for a solution that brings sustainable peace to the Nagas and their children. Naga mothers also appealed to the state government to “impartially” play its role of facilitators for peace by taking all Nagas forward. Further, NMA urged the Interlocutor to “abstain from selective division” of Nagas. It reminded that Naga women’s voices must also be counted in the process of peace building. NMA maintained that Nagas cannot afford another period of violence. “Let there be no more bloodshed and peace be brought through mutual respect and understanding,” NMA underscored.

Source from Nagaland Post.

An empty accord won’t usher in Naga peace

 

By Bharat Bhushan a senior journalist based in New Delhi.

24th Oct 2019

The Modi government, reluctant to learn anything from the Nehru regime, may be headed towards a similar misadventure.

Are those who do not learn from history condemned to repeat it? It would certainly seem so in the case of the proposed Naga settlement that the Narendra Modi government hopes to reach with the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs). The main insurgent group with whom the government has been negotiating for 22 years is likely to stay out of the agreement.

India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, did something similar.

In July 1960, the Nehru government signed an agreement with the Naga Peoples’ Convention instead of the underground insurgents led by Angami Zapu Phizo. Known as the 16-Point Agreement, it led to the merger of the Naga Hills District of Assam and the Tuensang Frontier Division of NEFA into a single administrative unit, the present state of Nagaland. The Naga Peoples’ Convention was initially organised to facilitate dialogue between the armed insurgents and Delhi. However, the facilitators themselves became the main party to the agreement. That did not resolve the Naga insurgency.

The Modi government, reluctant to learn anything from the Nehru regime, may be headed towards a similar misadventure.

Three major hurdles have emerged: the Naga insurgents do not want to be a part of the “Indian Union”; they want a separate flag and a separate Constitution. The roots of these differences lie in an agreement reached in 2015 which has become different to sustain after the developments in Jammu and Kashmir after August 5.

After 18 years of prolonged negotiations with the largest armed insurgent group, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) or NSCN(IM), a “Framework Agreement” was signed with them on August 3, 2015. It was precipitated by the ill-health of Isak Chishi Swu, chairman of the NSCN(IM), who was fighting for life in the Intensive Care Unit of a private hospital in Delhi. An agreement to guide future negotiations was hastily put together and Swu’s signature appended to it from his hospital bed. As a Sema Naga from Nagaland, Swu’s agreement indicated the wider acceptance of the peace process since Thuingaleng Muivah is from Manipur. The agreement was projected as historic and lent legitimacy to subsequent negotiations.
Perhaps it was the hasty drafting of the Framework Agreement that has led to the present impasse. Celebrating “better mutual understanding” between the two sides, the agreement notes that after “due appreciation of the imperatives of the contemporary realities and regard for future vision” they agreed to end violent confrontation to “usher in comprehensive progress in consonance with the genius of the Naga people”.

Further, recognising that in democracies sovereignty lies with the people, the two sides committed themselves to respecting the peoples’ wishes “for sharing the sovereign power as defined in competencies [referring to subjects in Union, State and Concurrent Lists of the Indian Constitution]”.

This was followed by the statement that, “it is matter of great satisfaction that dialogue between the Government of India and NSCN has successfully concluded and we are confident it will provide for an enduring inclusive new relationship of peaceful co-existence of the two entities (emphasis added)”. This phrase is the nub of dispute now.

The use of the term “two entities” had created confusion earlier in a ceasefire agreement signed in June 14, 2001. Since then the standing instruction to Indian negotiators was to never use the term which suggests that India and Nagaland are two separate entities. It is difficult to understand why then it was used again in 2015.

By the term “two entities” the Indian side probably meant the two signatories to the agreement, India and the NSCN (IM). However, it is being interpreted by the Nagas to mean that India and the Nagas are different sovereign entities. And as two different entities they have decided to forge a new relationship by sharing sovereign power, they believe that they have a right to retain their own flag and Constitution.

Similarly by an “inclusive” relationship Delhi means inclusion of other Naga groups in negotiations. This was used to justify dealing with the NNPGs. The NSCN(IM) insists that “inclusive” means applicability of the agreement to all Nagas whether living in Nagaland or in contiguous states. Their fear is that the settlement could be with the state of Nagaland alone as the NNPGs are based there.
After removing the separate flag and Constitution of J&K, the Modi government cannot concede them to the Nagas. Since the Prime Minister himself has apparently set a deadline to conclude the peace agreement by October 31, the attempt is to either bring the NSCN(IM) to heel or sign the agreement with those who were never a part of the 22-year-old negotiation but are eager to assume political power in Nagaland.

However, instead of trying to force a separate and meaningless “peace”, the Modi government can still avoid repeating Nehru’s mistake.

To begin with, it can admit that the framework agreement had been drafted in ambiguous language. Since that cannot now be undone, the government can suggest to the NSCN(IM) leadership that it take the draft final agreement of power sharing, which is indeed unique, to the Naga people through public consultations.

The people may well conclude that the power sharing they can achieve through this agreement is sustainable, pragmatic and satisfies their political aspirations even without a separate flag and a Constitution. That may give the NSCN(IM) leadership the opportunity to sign the agreement citing the people’s wishes.

If the people say that they are willing to convert the flag into a state insignia or emblem and that the peace agreement itself, incorporated in the Indian Constitution, can be called “Yehzabo” or the Naga Constitution, then that could be considered favourably. Then the “Naga Constitution” would become an
Article of the Indian Constitution.

However, setting artificial deadlines and not allowing time for the NSCN(IM) to hold public consultation on the flag and Constitution would be unwise.
Thuingaleng Muivah who has led the Naga peace negotiations with great patience and commitment is already 85 years old. Should these peace talks fail, it will take a few more decades for another visionary Naga leader to emerge.

Naga Flag and Constitution in our Identity

 

Everything has its own name and identity. Every nation has its own Flag and Constitution. We recognize and acknowledge different entities through their distinct culture and identity. What is the Naga identity as a Nation without a Naga Flag and Constitution? A flag is a national symbol. A national flag represents and symbolizes a country. It will be difficult to name a country without its flag and a constitution. Every country has got a specific flag as their national symbol. The Constitution is the fundamental blueprint of a country; it helps the government operate and also protect the rights of the people in the country. It explains their obligations. For Nagas, the people have a unique history with the Naga National Flag and Constitution as our identity and that is the reason why our Naga national movement continues to live on and it is why the Government of India recognized our unique history.

Naga National Flag (Zhie-ralha) and Constitution (Yehzabo) is our identity and also our road to sovereignty. The Naga Flag was first hoisted on 22 March 1956 at Parashen, near Sendenyu village, Rengma Region, Nagaland, when the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) was formed. Unless we get our own Identity there is no reason for the Nagas or for any Naga negotiator to accept any kind of economic package. Nothing less than the Naga Flag and Constitution should be accepted by any Naga negotiator or by the common people. We Nagas have our National Flag and Constitution, and if the GOI is sincere and committed to their Framework Agreement in recognition of Naga unique history, they should also recognise the Naga flag and constitution.

Both Nagas and non-Nagas have talked extensively about the Naga integration, and some Nagas presume that a Naga Flag and Constitution without integration is meaningless. However, what would you prefer – Naga integration under the Constitution of India or a Naga Flag and Constitution outside the Indian Constitution? Obviously, its always better to have our own Naga Flag and Constitution with integration outside the Constitution of India – which means having our own national identity. Our Naga flag and constitution is our identity – the symbol of our Naga nationality. Economic packages and Naga integration cannot be our Naga identity.

Naga integration without Naga Flag and Constitution

Accepting Naga Integration without Naga Flag and constitution could lead to the Naga national movement dying a natural death. Naga integration without Naga Flag and Constitution would be the same as the present state of Nagaland or like forming a state with same commumity or like the state of Mizoram where all the Mizos live together under one unit under the Constitution of India (their national identity is lost). A temporary Naga physical integration is insignificant without the Naga Flag and Constitution. Accepting Naga integration within the Constitution of India as a Naga political solution will be a suicidal step for the Nagas and a big blunder for the GOI as well.

Naga Flag and Constitution without Naga integration

The present artificial political boundary is not a serious problem or threat as Nagas want to live unitedly under one administrative unit. Nagas can always come together when our national identity represented by the Naga Flag and Constitution is duly recognized by GOI. The reason why GOI is always apprehensive of bringing the Nagas under one administrative unit is because that could unite the Nagas and pave the way for Naga sovereignty one day. Which is why GOI always strives to divide the Naga using various means and will continue to mislead and break up the unity of the Nagas so as to weaken and smother the Naga National Movement (NNM), but it is also the responsibility of our Naga people to stand strong regardless of the adverse weather they may encounter.

In conclusion, our Naga leaders and the common people should clearly understand and know that no Nation has ever negotiated for its Flag and Constitution after the Peace Settlement, and one needs to understand that it will be unfeasible to negotiate further for our rights to self-determination democratically when our Naga National Flag and Constitution is compromised by the present peace talks. It is also important for the Nagas to remember that it took years to come around to creating a Framework Agreement and to reach the present stage of negotiation because our leaders never compromised on the idea of sovereignty (Naga National Flag and Constitution), otherwise the Indo-Naga strife could have ended within a few years simply by accepting some economic packages or integration of Naga people under the Constitution of India. Our Naga national workers have had peace talks for the last 22 years, and we should be ready to continue to support the peace talks for another 22 years if the present talks could not bring about an honorable Naga Political Solution.

Delhi Police back to back up the North East people in Delhi

22 Dec. 2015: After the infamous booklet published by the Delhi police on “Dos and don’t” for NE students in July 2007, now the Delhi police is back to back up the North East India people in Delhi. The booklet on ‘Dos and Don’t’ went viral in social networking site and in all the local and national news paper. The good intention of the Delhi Police was assumed (turned out) to be a direct attack to the NE people by many NE people, and believe that the booklet was a discrimination, alienation from NE, prejudice, divisive policy etc.

Today the Delhi police is helping many NE people in Delhi and other cities too.  Their good Samaritan work is now vividly seen and published in many social media and other printed media.  In recent Delhi police recruitment especially for the NE people is encourageable, and it is believe that more NE people recruitment into Delhi police will be able to tackle the various problems encounter by the NE people in Delhi.

A special credit goes to IGP Robin Hibu IPS Nodal Officer for North East Region,  and his team for helping the NE people in Delhii and working out to bring justice for the NE people.

———————————————————————–

Friday, July 27, 2007

Delhi Police’s Security booklet on Northeast

In every northeast website, the story of Delhi Police’s Security booklet is still a burning story, a breaking news; different opinions from different writers continue to pour on…

The internet is full of prominent newspapers and illustrious NE writers expressing their views on this whole Hibu incident. Given below are just some of the results Google churned out:
Police booklet for NE students betrays prejudices – The Telegraph.
Dos & don’ts in Delhi irk NE students – The Economic Times.
NE students don’t want any diktats – The Times of India.
Delhi Police booklet for NE triggers protests – The Hindustan Times.
Delhi cops tell students from NE how to behave – The NorthEast Tribune.
Local media takes up ‘security tips’ for NE students – Aizol Times.
Social profiling of NE students draws flak – E-PAO
Booklet for NE students triggers protest – The Nagaland Post.
Row over NE students’ dress code – The Assam Tribune.
Delhi cops tell students from NE how to behave – Good Morning Star.
NE in Indian Mainstream – Kangla Online.
Delhi ‘profiles’ to protect – Zogam Online.
Insecuring Cultures – David Buhril @ E-PAO
Alienating the NE – DMT @ aizoltimes.com
Developing the Right Attitude – Donald Tsang @ E-PAO
Unwise Delhi Police divisive policy on NE – Thohe Pao @ sinlung.com
Do’s and Dont’s for NE People at Delhi – F. Silkam Sangma @ E-PAO
DISCRIMINATION! Delhi police profiles northeast students– Akangjungla Longchar (The Morung Express) @ nagalim.nl
‘Delhi police security booklet’ In the eye of the storm– Longrangty Longchar (The Morung Express) @ kuknalim.com
In Delhi do like the Delhiites do: Delhi Police – lawrkhawm.com
Police booklet for NE Students – mi(sual).com
We deserve an apology from the IPS Officer – Kuknalim Forum.
The NE population may help Delhi locals – assamonline (yahoo groups)
Is it the case of Good intentions going wrong? – Great Indian Mutiny
Sickening Delhi polices 7 sisters – Journalist + Blogger “N”
Battle over the Dress Code for NE Girls – mouthshut.com.
a{text-decoration:underline;}a:hover{color:#FF9900;text-decoration:underline;}
Opinion on Delhi Police’s “Security Booklet”
Ethnocide: The Great Hibu Fiasco
Kima read the booklet and blogs.
Delhi Police’s Diktats and us
Bidyananda Hanjabam on Robin Hibu’s “booklet”
The Chinky Syndrome
Courtesy : The Sangai Express Editorial
Insecuring Cultures
David Buhril says Culture or Identity is defined by smell, taste and colour
Developing The Right Attitude
Donald Tsang says we need to develop ‘right attitudes’
Unwise Delhi Police divisive policy on NE people
R.B. Thohe Pou vent out at Delhi Police “security booklet”
Do’s and Dont’s for NE People at Delhi
Febroneous Sangma vent out at this “security booklet”

Unwise Delhi Police divisive policy on NE people

By: R.B. Thohe Pou *

We are happy that we have an IPS in Delhi from North East India. He is from Northeast and people from NE may feel good because there is some one from NE who can fight justice for the NE people. But bringing out the booklet, “Security tips for the Northeast students/visitors in Delhi” is unwise booklet, which brings more insecure and division to the NE people from the mainstream India.

Today, there is a booklet on, Security tips for the NE students in Delhi, but I am afraid that tomorrow there may be many such similar booklets for each community living in different parts of India. In every city or town there are some minority people and if we make a separate rule for the minority group with the interest of the majority people, the minority people will have no place to live. Bringing the booklet on, Security tips for the northeast students in Delhi is one of the most unwise booklets.

I am indeed sad to learn that IPS who seems to be educated person is trying to divide the NE people, and divert the NE people from the mainstream Indian. We know that there are many politicians trying their best to bring unity in diversity in India. But he is just enjoying writing to divide the people. Most of the NE people want to have their own state/nation as we observed in last 30-50 decades. So trying to divide and make such kind of discrimination would be added another chance or encourage to go ahead with their agenda to live a separate nation.

I am sure that it is not wise to make rule for some specific people. I think we should always take precaution in writing very critical view or making such of separate rule for those insurgent dominated region. If they are hurt, law is nothing to do and the gun/sword what they have in their hand may be used to find the justice.

I am sad because the Delhi Moral Police is treating us unwisely also they are indirectly destroying the good work of last 20-30 decades of our politicians. Mr. IPS from Arunachal Pradesh might have gone out of his head. How can he insist to make separate rule for the NE and divide the northeast people from mainland India when many politicians are trying to bring the whole northeast people under the mainstream of India, if he continues to insist on his writing, thinking that “Pen is mightier than sword”, I am afraid that some of the insurgents from NE may teach a new lesson that “Sword is mightier than Pen” in this modern world.

We all need to know that in this modern world, no one is the boss to dictate. It is becoming very difficult to use force without the concern of the people. Let’s learn to live together peacefully and share the problems to solve the problems for there is no any human problem, which is too difficult to solve.

Related Article on NE Dress & Behaviour
TSE News 14th Jul ’07 TSE News 17th Jul ’07
Dressed to kill ?? – Jenni Readers Reply
Dress code of NE girls for cops’ failures – Oken Sandham
A Foreigner In Own Country – Jimmy Wahengbam
Dress Code In Delhi University? – Hopson Sapam
On discrimination in Mainland India – Hahat Melchior
A Manipuri in New Delhi – Alberto Mangsatabam
Northeast Students Protest Rally In Delhi – Lalremlien Neitham
The Clogged Space – David Buhril

* R.B. Thohe Pou contributes regularly to e-pao.net . The writer can be contacted at thohepou(at)rediffmail(dot)com . This article was webcasted on July 20th, 2007

Fighting for India, and Against Prejudice

KomNEW DELHI — MANGTE CHUNGNEIJANG MARY KOM, the most celebrated female boxer in India, grew up fighting.

She fought convention as the eldest child of a landless farmer in the fractious northeastern state of Manipur, where she drove steer across rice fields, work that boys in the village let her know, derisively, belonged to men.

She fought lack of means when she trained in the state’s capital as a teenager — buying knockoff sneakers in a black market bordering Myanmar, making do with two meals a day, shadowboxing her reflection in a mirror.

She fought her own body after undergoing one cesarean section for twin boys, then another for a third boy, then going back to train through postpartum sluggishness and her legs’ sudden unwillingness to bounce step.

It is perhaps not surprising then, that Ms. Kom, 32, who goes by the name Mary, cannot seem to give up the fight.

She is a five-time world champion, was the Olympic bronze medalist at the London Games, and gold medalist at this fall’s Asian Games in Incheon, South Korea. Her autobiography, “Unbreakable,” was released in 2013 at a ceremony hosted by the Indian actress and former Miss Universe, Sushmita Sen, who called it a story of “a woman’s road to emancipation and empowerment.” She was the subject of an operatic Bollywood biopicreleased in September that was a commercial success, perhaps the chief indicator of having arrived in India.

But her rise has been punctuated by deep grievances, often against what she describes as a sports bureaucracy stacked against her and fellow boxers. At the Asian Games medal ceremony in October, another Manipuri boxer, Laishram Sarita Devi, tearfully refused her own bronze in the 60-kilogram category, protesting the judges’ decision to award the victory in a semifinal match to her Korean opponent. Ms. Devi was suspended by the International Boxing Association for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Her colleagues, including Ms. Kom, stood by her, and India’s sports ministerwrote a letter to the amateur boxing federation pleading for the revocation of her suspension.

For Ms. Kom, a devout Christian from the tiny Kom tribal community, who has remained somewhat of an outsider in India and who has railed against bias in judging, Ms. Devi’s suspension reflects deeper fissures in the sport.

“Of course she won the bout,” said Ms. Kom, in a hotel suite not far from the presidential palace in New Delhi, asserting that the referee cheated, wanting to advance a Korean candidate to the finals. “We are always facing the same problems. Sarita was facing internationally. I was facing nationally.”

Some say Ms. Kom has used her grievances to her advantage, and they have certainly added color to her underdog story. But they have also isolated her, limiting her impact on India’s sporting culture.

“What is the use having a women’s boxer like Mary Kom?” said S. Sabanayakan, a sportswriter who has followed Ms. Kom’s career. “I hardly see Mary Kom talking to other boxers, giving tips. She only wants to be Mary Kom. Mary Kom is an iconic figure in Indian women’s boxing. Why can’t she motivate all the boxers in India? Why only Manipur?”

Her opponent, she said, had “never, ever beaten me. But the referees don’t favor me, they don’t give any points to me.”

Ms. Kom added, “In India, there is this problem facing most of the boxers from the Northeast.”

INDIA has struggled to contain multiple insurgencies within its cluster of northeastern states, thinly tied to the mainland by a 14-mile stretch of land in West Bengal. Most of the states are dominated by tribal populations with ethnic ties to their Southeast Asian neighbors. When they come to Delhi or Bangalore for school or work, many complain of discrimination.

Ms. Kom is no exception. On a Sunday several years ago, Ms. Kom was walking to church in a South Delhi neighborhood with friends, all Koms. A bus pulled up beside them, and the conductor called them Nepalis, implying, she said, that they were part of a migrant servant class. She does not remember who threw the first punch, but before she knew it, her male friends were fighting with passengers, while others fled.

Among northeastern Indians, she said, “the face is mostly similar, they think that we’re from Nepal, and they really look down on us. That’s the main problem. They don’t know where we are from.”

Many deflect criticism of judging bias in India based on state origins. But Ms. Kom represents a bit of a puzzle for the country — the pride and joy of Indian boxing, in the shape of a woman who bears little stamp of its dominant culture.

“People love Mary Kom,” said Mr. Sabanayakan, who attended the 2009 match. Mary had recently given birth, and Ms. Jangra “pounced on Mary like a lion on prey.”

Her complaints, he said, were an extension of the caginess she deploys inside the ring.

“It’s the psychology of a boxer to keep everyone under pressure,” he said. “She has a knack of creating this psychological pressure on the judges.”

But even as judges defend themselves against accusations of bias, some reveal deeply entrenched attitudes in India’s heartland about Manipuris.

Mr. Sabanayakan said that there were a large number of boxers from Manipur because tribals tend to fight by nature. Jay Kowli, recently named the head of Boxing India, a national amateur boxing organization, said that Manipuris come from a martial society, and are “hot-blooded.”

“She comes from a tribe which is genetically aggressive,” he said. “They’re warriors. You don’t expect a man on the front, a soldier on the front to be like a gentleman.”

Ms. Kom, for her part, seeks a change in the boxing establishment through representation. She recently met with the sports minister and suggested three men who could be named as independent observers of matches, including one of her first coaches in Manipur.