American and Naga Independence

 

As I reflect on the 75^th year celebration of the Naga declaration of independence, I grieve over the decades' long conflict and its relative lack of success in establishing a free nation for the Nagas. Americans only had to fight for eight years to win our independence.

There were 56 state delegates who signed the
American Declaration of Independence. Each of the 13 states squabbled and argued with one another in an effort to gain the best benefits for each state, but ultimately, these 56 men recognized the truth of Benjamin Franklin’s words, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

The last line of the American Declaration spelled out the serious nature of declaring independence: “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE TO EACH OTHER OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR.” That is to say, the signers knew that Great Britain would try to arrest them and publicly execute them for treason against the king. This was deadly serious.

None of those 56 American patriots dreamed of ever becoming rich and successful through war with Great Britain. I think most of the 56 signers died in poverty. With their own finances, they clothed, fed, and outfitted Gen. George Washington’s army. Why would they do so?

They risked so much because they longed for a country with freedoms and good governance that the colonial power could not given them. They invested their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor to forge a new nation in which their children could live safely and securely.

May God grant the Nagas wisdom, perseverance, strength, and godly leaders to lead them in their struggle for self-determination.

Kuknalim

The Civil War and the Trump Impeachment

Normally in democratic societies, if you don’t like the election results, you regroup and try harder to win in the next election cycle. Not so in 1860.

Voters in slave holding states split their vote between three candidates, leading to Lincoln’s election in 1860. For most voters in the South, Lincoln was an illegitimate president. They didn’t like the Republican party’s opposition to the spread of slavery westward, and they thought Lincoln would take measures toward the end of slavery.

Instead of regrouping and trying harder to win in 1864, a number of Southern states declared secession. Glad this sort of thing hasn’t ever happened since then.

Naga Unity in 70 Years of Dystopia

 Jelle J.P. Wouters, author of In the Shadows of Naga Insurgency, claims that the primary social unit for Nagas was the village. Rarely did Nagas ask about one's tribe when getting to know someone; they would ask, rather, what is your village? and to whose clan do you belong? The rivalry and raids between villages of the same tribe are well known, which is not surprising since there were little or no external threats to the inhabitants of the Naga Hills in the 19th century or earlier (due to the extremely rugged hills). Not even the British could mount sustained, credible threats against most Naga villages.

Now, these last 70 years and more, Naga leaders have argued that the external threat comes from an occupying force wishing to colonize the Naga Hills. If this is true, then those living in the Naga inhabited areas need to identify the unifying essentials to form themselves as a people--no longer on the basis of village, or even of tribe. There must be a pan-tribal unity.

As an outsider who knows a thing or two about societal unity, it is clear to me that there is little to unite the Naga inhabited areas with the Indian union. I understand clearly that GoI's motive is to use the northeast as a geographical buffer against an aggressive Chinese government--as the chicken neck of the Siliguri Pass reveals.

Despite all the GoI talk of Nagas being one with the Indian union, there is little in common between Aryan Indians and the Nagas. Some have even argued that that Nagas have more in common with South Pacific islanders than with mainland Indians. The first time a Naga explained to me the radical difference between Nagas and mainland Indians, he said, "We eat dog." That was perfectly clear to me.

Moreover, it seems nearly impossible for Nagas to integrate into Indian society. First, there is an extreme intolerance for Christianity in the prevailing Hindu society of today. Secondly, all mainland India is wholly smitten by the caste system which not only looks down on Nagas as unclean, but also suppresses any attempt of all those in lower castes to better their social status—this is radically opposed to deeply ingrained Naga democratic commitments. Then there's the extreme reverence of the cow, making it nearly impossible for Nagas to integrate socially with mainland Indians in New Delhi or Kolkata. All this makes my heartbreak whenever I see Naga youth moving to New Delhi or Mumbai for work or education--they'd be better off moving to Kenya or even Egypt.

In light of such social dissonance between Nagas and Aryan Indians, surely there is enough in common between all Nagas to all "hang together" rather than to “hang separately.” Surely this is true despite all the dysfunctionality and dystopia that has arisen in Naga society because of having to live these 70 years in a state of armed and often violent resistance. With unity among all Nagas, and by the grace of God, the possibilities of peace, stability, prosperity, and destiny are endless.

Development in Hanoi through Free Trade with America as a Model for Nagalim

Very strange, people thought—Very strange that Trump would propose Hanoi as the venue for the second round of talks with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Hanoi was the place of American humiliation—and North Korea was altogether happy to exploit the venue’s embarrassment for America. But analysts are finally figuring out that Trump not only plays chess while everyone else plays checkers, but that he plays 3-D chess.

After a decade of war, Hanoi was in ruins and disrepair. For years, America did no business with Hanoi, and the city struggled to arise from ashes and despair. In many ways, Hanoi was like North Korea. North Korea is a nation utterly dependent upon China for everything. People die of starvation routinely in North Korea. There is a famous satellite picture of North Korea at night that explains North Korea’s economic ruin compared with neighboring countries. Surrounding countries of South Korea, China, and Japan are all lit up, while North Korea is dead black.

In the last 20 years, however, Hanoi has grown exponentially, and has become one of America’s strong trading partners. Hanoi’s skyline shows it vibrancy. America’s great nemesis now has an incredibly beautiful skyline. Kim Jong-un assumed the choice of Hanoi was a Trump blunder (as did most of the American media), but when Kim Jong-un and his large retinue of statesmen arrived and saw the glorious skyline and highly developed beach resorts, they immediately realized that Trump’s blunder was a brilliant move. Each one of them thought, “If America’s great enemy Hanoi could become like this through friendship with the U.S., then why can’t North Korea also become a place of great development, wealth, and beauty.”

The same can be true of Nagalim. Now, having suffered 70 years of suffering and deprivations, a stable and peaceful Nagalim could follow in the footsteps of resurrected Hanoi through free trade with the U.S. Nagalim has such extraordinary natural beauty that it would make an excellent tourist destination. Traditional festivals throughout the tribal areas could draw thousands more every year. Many westerners would love to explore the great megaliths and study traditional Naga culture in many venues. Many war historians would take the opportunity to visit the site of the Battle of Kohima which the British Imperial War Museum claims was the greatest battle ever of all time for the British Army.

All this might be overly optimistic, but the possibilities are very real. Americans don’t want to invest in China. But many would find Nagalim as a great opportunity. Given the historic relationship between American Baptists and Nagalim, there might already be opportunities awaiting in the wings.

Trump-Putin Presser Analysis

The press conference transcript reveal that Trump had two urgencies regarding the 2016 election. Some confusion arises when people read Trump’s answers in light of their own urgencies and not according to context and Trump’s own intention. To avoid this confusion, the presser transcript needs to be read in light of the two urgencies

Trump’s obvious first urgency is that there was no collusion—and despite a year-long furious, prejudiced and highly motivated, well-staffed and well-financed investigation, there remains no evidence of collusion. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with the Trump campaign.

When Trump says there was no collusion, he certainly is not disagreeing with US intelligence agencies. When Trump denies collusion, however, the Democrats and the news media (but I repeat myself) hear Trump defending Putin’s denial of interfering in the election. Yet these are two vastly different things. Trump’s denials of collusion in no way convey Russian innocence and contrary to the hysteria, he did not exonerate Russia of election meddling.

 

Did Russia attempt to influence the election? Trump says yes, emphatically. Did Russian election meddling impact the election? Trump says no, and does so without contradicting his intelligence agencies. Did Trump collude with Russia? Trump says no. These are perfectly reasonable assertions that open-minded people should respect.

Secondly, Trump reviles the Obama administration for its failure to deal with Russian interference. This is reflected in Trump’s focus on the hacked computer network server used by the Democratic National Committee which the FBI did not examine. Trump is right to focus on this since the primary accusation of interference arises from emails that were hacked from the DNC server, and subsequently published by WikiLeaks (which denies that Russia was ever its source). Quizzically, the Obama justice department relied on the word of cybersecurity company CrowdStrike in concluding that the Russians were the source of the hack. It is said that CrowdStrike was led by Clinton loyalists. The fiasco is the fount of all sorts of speculation, rightly so.

Trump noted that his own National Director of Intelligence Dan Coates (former Indiana Republican senator) told him that Russia hacked the server, and Trump added, “I don't see any reason why it [the hacking source] would be [Russia]” which Trump later amended to say, “I don't see any reason why it wouldn’t be.” Trump’s repeated emphasis on the need for the FBI to examine the server highlights that we really have no reason to think the Russians hacked it or didn’t hack it. Thus, both Trump’s original comment and his corrected comment are valid. At any rate, for good reason, there remains tremendous controversy over who hacked the DNC server.

The presser is short and easily digestible. I am no great political genius, but I am capable of reading transcripts, and my analysis is spot on. I find it incredible that so much bogus claims are being made of such straight forward statements and answers. I really think much of the hysteria arises from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

From Trump Voter to Trump Supporter

I have transitioned from being a Trump voter to a Trump supporter.

• I fully support Trump's blue collar agenda, and the revitalization of the manufacturing industry.
• I am positively overwhelmed by Trump's tax reform (and I hope for more!)
• I tend to agree with Trump that we can only have free trade if our foreign trading partners practice fair trade
• I am surprisingly pleased with how Trump has governed in accord with Constitutional Conservative values, although I have serious reservations about the $1.3 trillion spending bill he recently signed.
• I am glad that Trump stands up to the liberal media and is willing to fight for factual reporting, etc.
• I am impressed with Trump's foreign affairs stances and achievements.
• I am thrilled with Trump's push toward deregulation and energy policy.
• Anything embarrassing or incompatible with my politics that Trump might have done or might be doing is all forgiven considering his appointment of Constitutionalist judges to the judiciary.

You're Needed in the Trenches

To save these United States, some of us need to seriously consider getting deeply involved in politics.

In 1862, the Union was beset by several major defeats in the Civil War, despite larger armies, better supplies, and impressive infrastructure. In those early battles, Confederate generals simply out-generaled their northern counterparts.

The quality of commanders largely reflected a difference in culture between North and South. There was a strong military tradition in the South wherein a military life was one which was highly esteemed—there was no shortage of highly capable men seeking military careers. Not so in the North; society’s most capable men went into business, academia, and manufacturing, and not the military. Capable leaders in the North kept their jobs when hostilities broke out, leaving military leadership in the hands of less capable men. Or so they did until they were overwhelmed by repeated defeats on the battlefield.

In 1862, then, some leading citizens in the North began a movement to recruit society’s cream of the crop for military leadership. The movement was successful. Among the leaders of the movement was a Bowdoin College professor named Joshua Chamberlain who anchored the Union defense on the left at Gettysburg and whose extraordinary leadership was instrumental in trapping Lee’s army immediately leading to Appomattox. Chamberlain, however, was but one of many leading citizens who gave up prestigious positions and embraced the hardships of army life to save the union.

If we still think this union is worth saving, then our best citizens, or at least a good number of them, need to answer the call to life in the political trenches.