It is the responsibility of Human Rights organsiations, if they wish to be taken seriously, not only to present their cases with clarity and proper reasoning, but above all to strive as far as possible for truthfulness and accuracy in historical and current facts. It was with considerable dismay, therefore, that I read the NISC release of 23rd August 2004 headed 'The Integrity of the Seven Sisters of India's North East or the Myth of Greater Nagaland.'

While the title promised much, the paper itself is characterised by a wanton falsification of historical facts, an absence of convincing argumentation, and an obfuscation in the usage of key terms. This renders it little more than willful misrepresentation and rhetorical propaganda. As such it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. If NISC wishes to act as a serious advocate of any section of the Naga peoples it will need to be much more rigorous and responsible in checking the validity of what it puts out as fact, and in analysing carefully the arguments of its releases.

This sort of paper does no good to the cause of justice and peace in the northeast region of India. I note the paper is unattributed - perhaps because its author is aware of the speciousness of the case?

It would take too long to deal with all the inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained in this short, four page, paper, but the most blatant of them must be corrected. The historical data for the colonial period is readily available not only in the archival holdings of the India Office Collection of the British Library and in the various Annual Reports and Gazetteers, but in the published works of MacKenzie and Reid. For the modern period there is a wealth of published material of varying quality, much of it by Nagas themselves.

You author appears to have read or consulted none of it. This is unforgivable and would have saved him from at least the following crass historical errors:

1. In para: 1 we are told 'Assam had little or no connection to what is now called India': in fact, following the failure of the Purunder Sing administration his territories were placed under the direct management of British officers and Assam became a Non-Regulation Province of the Indian Empire in 1838.

2. In para: 2 we are told 'the seven sisters were carved out of Assam': this is, of course, nonsense. NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh) was not part of Assam under the British. More importantly, both Tripura and Manipur were independent kingdoms, both with a long history (and incidentally, like the Ahoms, with written chronicles) and were never annexed by the British. Like other princely states they reverted to full freedom in 1947 and they were not annexed by India until 1949.

3. In para: 4 is the statement 'the British never 'colonised the free Nagas': in fact the Naga Hills was declared an excluded area (ie of restricted access) under the Constitution Act of 1935 and administered directly by the Governor of Assam through British commissioners. Clans now known as Naga in Manipur and Assam were of course subjects of the Kingdom of Manipur and Province of Assam respectively.

4. Also in para: 4 we have the curious statement that 'together with the British the Nagas defeated the Japanese': it is of course true that there were many Naga (and Kuki) irregulars who gave sterling service to the allies, and which is widely acknowledged. However Kohima (like Imphal) was defended by British and Indian troops (in fact, in the so-called 'Burma Campaign' there were three and a half times as many Indian soldiers and nearly as many Africans as British troops: ironically the Indian battalions included the Assam Rifles, who after 1958 have disgraced themselves by terrible violence under AFSPA against civilians in the northeast).

5. Also in para: 4 we are told Nehru and U Nu met in Kohima to agree a border which separated Naga villages: I have advised you before of the falsity of this statement. U Nu's meeting with Nehru in 1953 in Imphal was to discuss the Kabaw Valley (previously part of Manipur but leased to Burma after the Treaty of Yandavo in 1826). They did go on to Kohima but I can find no evidence even in the writings of Naga historians that the colonial border between Assam (including the Naga Hills) and Burma was ever raised.

6. The claim in para: 1 that the NNC sent a telegram to the UN 'in which the Naga nation declared its independence' needs more extended comment. The only trace of this I can find is in West's book (The Most dangerous Legacy, 1999). According to him they sent a declaration of independence on 14th August 1947 in which they proclaimed a new state which included 'the Southern Nagas, the Manipur Hill Nagas (these are presumably meant to be the same), Cachar Nagas and Konyak Nagas - a unity of different groups.'
There are serious problems with the wording of this alleged letter. However the crucial point is that (as West admits) there is no evidence of the existence of this document. West suggests that the DC of the Naga Hills, Pawsey, deliberately withheld it, but this is not really likely given Pawsey's support for the Nagas. More important, in the NNC nine point agreement with India in June 1947 section 6 spelt out what territory was being claimed, namely parts of the border area with Assam (which was in fact transferred to the new state of Nagaland later). There is no evidence I can find that the NNC claimed parts of Burma or Manipur in 1947, nor indeed could they since the Government of India was in no position to dispose of territory in Burma, and Manipur reverted to full freedom from British control in August 1947. These territorial claims are part of a very much later agenda of the NSCN(IM).

Even the grandiose manifesto of the underground 'Yehzabo' of 1962 does not name specific land claims. The Nagalim concept, as far as the evidence suggests, did not arise until the meeting of UNPO (nothing to do with the UN by the way) in 1990. I shall deal with the borders below.' Incidentally the Gandhi statement always seems to be used in this context - can your author give an exact reference for it?

7. In para: 9 it is claimed the Nagas were living in relative peace with their neighbours except for the Meiteis ..' The internecine warfare between different Naga clans and indeed villages in the colonial and pre-colonial periods is well documented. The allusion to the Meiteis' antagonism is sadly part of the NCSN(IM)'s aggressive anti-Meitei propaganda. The fact is that in the early period of the Meetei kingdom there was very close and warm contact between between hill people (ie Nagas) and Meiteis, which is not surprising since they share common origins from southern China. Some of the earlier Meetei kings had wives from what later became termed 'Naga' clans (from at least King Mungyamba in the 16th century, as is well documented in the Cheitharol Kumpapa, the Manipur Court Chronicle). The good relations between them is ackowledged even by Manipuri Naga writers (eg Kamei).

The advent of Vaishnavism in the Manipur Valley did it is true, cause some separation, especially the extreme caste movement (mostly by non- Meetei brahmins) in the first half of the 20th century. But outcasting was directed more against the non-conforming Meiteis themselves than tribal peoples. Strict Hinduism has declined rapidly and there is now increasing intermarriage. Many Nagas and Kukis have been settled in the Imphal plain for generations and without antagonism. Even during the 2000 riots over the NSCN(IM) ceasefire extension the state Governor remarked more than once there had been no case of inter ethnic violence. Obviously your writer does not have any experience of present day Manipur.

These historical errors are really quite lamentable. But perhaps even more serious is the underlying assumptions behind the paper. Two are particularly important and inter-related: firstly, the assumption that the 'Nagas' were a nation with a united polity from time immemorial, and secondly, that this nation occupied a well defined geographical area which stretched well beyond the present Nagaland state (if the 'Nagalim' claim - which sadly features on your website - is to be believed some 120,000 square miles, several times the current area of Nagaland!) These assumptions enable your writer to use such emotive (and quite unjustified) phraseology such as 'reunification of the Nagas', 'Naga Homeland', 'land taken from them', and so on. The clearest aspect of the 'border' issue is with Burma (Myanmar). This border is an international one which dates from colonial times.

It is difficult to think of any other part of the world where colonial borders have been challenged to the extent of armed guerilla activities. In post-colonial times borders always seem to have been respected , even in those many cases where they have split peoples which claim a common ethnicity (indeed it would be difficult to find borders which do not in one way or another split common ethnicities, even in Europe). A glance at the borders within Africa will make this all to clear, yet while there have been multiple armed conflicts on that continent they have not been on the grounds of uniting ethnic groups - even when some of those split groups can claim to have constituted an ancient kingdom. Quite simply, imputed common ethnicity is not the basis for a modern state (perhaps excepting Nazi Germany). Even Israel is not a mono-ethnic state. This may be inconvenient, but it is not a ground to challenge international borders.

The case of the border with Manipur is straightforward, and the historical evidence is there for anyone who will trouble to read it. The earliest written survey by Pemberton in 1835 gives areas of control (the concept of border had not yet intruded upon the states of the northeast and its neighbours) and notes that the hills between Manipur and the Naga Hills were in his time unoccupied. McCulloch in 1859 classifies the Angami as being under Manipur rule. This is confirmed by Brown in 1874, who adds that the British had recently deprived the Raja of Manipur of control over the Angami since they (the British) wished to stop the traffic in slaves between the Nagas and the Bengalis of Sylhet. The present border was ratified in 1872.

There is thus no justification whatever for the claim that the northern hills of Manipur state were ever part of an alleged Naga nation. It is scarcely surprising that the Government of Manipur (which has always included Nagas and Kukis in strict proportion to the ratios of the population) has resisted the attempt by the NSCN to claim up to 60% of the state's land area. The territorial claims of the NSCN that 'they want the Nagaland Homeland as it was before the British started colonising, not just Nagaland State, but the hills of Manipur, Assam, relatively small parts of Arunachal Pradesh and of course Burma' are therefore based upon a complete ignorance of Naga, as well as colonial, history. NISC should really do its own homework before giving space to such falsities on its website.

But what of the other assumption, that there was a 'Naga nation' and that there is a common ethnicity which unites all Nagas? Of course one can define 'ethnicity' in any way one likes and to suit any agenda. It is quite clear that the NSCN(IM) has exploited its own version of 'ethnicity' - Naganess - which is not scientific but ideological. From the early ethnographical literature it is very clear that each clan which is now part of the Naga constellation had its own social structure and language. Interclan warfare was common (indeed the main reason the British reluctantly took control of the excluded areas was to put an end to inter-clan warfare and raids on its own territory). This animosity continued after the 'Naga club' had begun its pan-Naga movement (as the number of factions and killing of leaders indicate). Naganess is a modern construct which was, ironically, only possible because of the use of a common foreign language (English). The NSCN wishes to read back into the past a movement which only began to emerge in the last decade of colonial rule. Historically - and in stark contrast to the Ahoms and the Meiteis - the Nagas had no common social structure, polity, kingdom or language, nor did they have written records. It is a greater tragedy then that the NSCN is perpetuating the traditional internecine rivalry which marked Naga societies in pre-colonial and colonial times.

The NSCN(IM) claims to represent all Nagas. It clearly does not. It is at odds with its own state government, it has been condemned by leading Naga politicians, including previous Naga CMs and leaders from neighbouring states (see eg. statement of 19th May 2004 by Naga Congress leaders), it engages in wide scale violent intimidation and extortion from its own people, and has been severely criticised by academics and leaders of NGOs. The activities of the NSCN(IM) in the 1950s led directly to the imposition of AFSPA, with its subsequent inhuman treatment of civilians It is well documented that its vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing of Kukis from northern Manipur in the 1990s led to over 1000 deaths, including hacking to death and beheading of women and children as well as men (documented by Phanjoubam Bleeding Manipur, 2003 as well as in human rights reports). In the light of such atrocities against fellow Christians the NSCN slogan of 'Nagaland for Christ' is blasphemous. NISC proclaims itself on the August 23rd paper as 'a human rights organisation.' Let it examine the abuse of the human rights of civilian citizens in Nagaland, Manipur, and Assam which has been perpetrated by the very NSCN (IM) which NISC is supporting. It might make a start by urging the NSCN to abandon its misguided agenda of territorial expansion backed by intimidation and violence.