An agreement on Nagaland’s status will replace the lack of
understanding that has long characterised the relations between the
Nagas and the rest of India with goodwill
Exactly nine years ago, Atal Bihari Vajpayee made the
first road trip from the only airport in Nagaland at Dimapur to Kohima,
the capital, by an Indian Prime Minister. Reflecting on that journey,
Mr. Vajpayee wryly remarked, in his inimitable style, at a public
reception: “I was told that, of all the roads in the State, this is the
best. If this is the best, it is difficult to imagine how bad the worst
is.” Well, the four-lane highway that the Prime Minister announced at
that meeting in 2003 is still being built but the political gaps among
the Naga pro-independence groups that were enormous when his
predecessors P.V. Narasimha Rao, H.D. Deve Gowda and Inder Gujral began
the process, have substantially shrunk although crucial differences
remain.
It is worth remembering here what Mr.
Vajpayee said in 2003 because that set the tone and pace for a possible
Naga settlement and it is worth quoting at length because no one in the
successor government has that flair for oratory, that touch of
sensitivity or compassion. In his public appearances, Mr. Vajpayee
emphasised a key phrase: “peace with dignity and honour” several times,
for he had been well advised on the Naga belief in these values and
those remarks were greatly appreciated.
‘Era of peace’
“For
too long this fair land has been scarred and seared by violence. It has
been bled by the orgy of the killings of human beings by human beings.
Each death pains me. Each death diminishes us. My government has been
doing everything possible to stop this bloodshed, so that we can
together inaugurate a new era of peace, development and prosperity in
Nagaland. The past cannot be rewritten. But we can write our common
future with our collective, cooperative efforts … Rather than remaining
tied to the past, we have to take care of the present and look to the
future … This is the time for reconciliation and peace-making. It is
true that, of all the States in India, Nagaland has a unique history. We
are sensitive to this historical fact.”
That
‘sensitiveness’ was not on display from the 1950s to the 1990s when the
state showed that it was prepared to bludgeon the Nagas into submission.
This was followed by a recognition that political issues could be
resolved only politically, not by military means. As a result,
ceasefires and cessation of hostilities and operations began to herald a
fresh political process in Nagaland and other States blighted by armed
confrontations, including Assam, Meghalaya and, to a lesser degree,
Manipur. Yet, problems remain — including the existence of the draconian
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in key States, despite the virtual
end of organised violence by armed separatist groups.
It
is thus encouraging that negotiators for the Government of India and
the principal Naga militant group that goes by the acronym of NSCN (I-M)
are hunkering down for what could arguably be the most difficult and
decisive phase of over 15 years of dialogue and ceasefire. A range of
key issues is yet to be finalised and it would be foolish to discount
their importance.
These include the phrasing of the
constitutional amendments that will give the Nagas greater cultural and
political space without providing territorial gain (the most contentious
issue in the region that affects Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh),
giving the former ‘underground’ groups and their leaders a political
role in the State of Nagaland, and rehabilitating the Naga fighting
cadre in existing formations of the Indian army such as the Naga
Regiment, the paramilitary forces or the State police.
This
challenging stretch of talks has begun with efforts to convince the
States of Manipur, Assam and, to a lesser degree, Arunachal Pradesh of
the need for a settlement and that this will not harm their interests.
Officials on either side indicate that efforts are on to enable a
package to be announced before Nagaland goes to the polls for a new
Legislative Assembly in April 2013 although there have been reports
about a ‘Christmas’ or New Year announcement by the Centre.
The
latter appears unlikely despite growing pressure from leaders like
Chief Minister Nephiu Rio, whose Democratic Alliance of Nagaland,
aligned to the Bharatiya Janata Party and bidding for a third term, has
offered to resign along with the other 59 members of the State Assembly
to pave the way for the Naga rebels to take charge of the State before
the elections.
New actors and factors
All
this is also taking place in an environment that has seen the growth of
several new actors and factors: one is the emergence of an increasingly
articulate civil society that resists being pushed around by one side or
the other, especially the armed groups; a second is a clear demand for
reconciliation among the factions, a process which is finally taking
place led by civil society and church forums (it should be noted that
this is happening after decades of internecine blood letting which at
times has been as brutal as the conflicts with the Indian forces); a
third is the growth of a younger generation that, while passionate about
Naga rights, is not as committed to the larger goals of the older
generation; many younger Nagas today also see virtue in living in a
larger and more flexible political and economic framework and are
visible in universities, professions, the service and other industries.
The
developments have been pushed forward by the accession of the main NSCN
to a role within the Indian Constitution, although the latter would
have to be amended to reflect Naga interests and needs. The 30-odd
demands put down by the NSCN (I-M) at the start of a formal dialogue
with New Delhi have been narrowed down. The negotiations have been held
in as diverse settings as Malaysia and South Africa, the Netherlands and
Switzerland. And while the Indian interlocutors have changed — from
Swaraj Kaushal to K. Padamanabhiah, former Home Secretary, and currently
to Raghaw Pandey, former Nagaland Chief Secretary who is credited with
the Communitisation (greater self-governance) Programme that has won
international acclaim, the Naga leadership in the NSCN (I-M) has
remained the same: Isak Chisi Swu, the chairman of the group, and Th.
Muivah, the general secretary.
Those demands have now
been narrowed down as both sides have agreed on a separate flag for
Nagaland, new names for its Assembly and Governor, and a pan-Naga
cultural and social body (that can protect the cultural interests of the
Nagas wherever they live). Whether this body will eventually become a
formal political structure, spanning State boundaries, is a difficult
and tricky issue. Manipur’s response and that of Assam will be critical
to this effort, especially as there are major criminal charges against
leaders of the Naga organisations in these States. Will an amnesty mean
that such cases would be dropped?
In addition, once
an agreement is inked, the NSCN (I-M) will have to reinvent itself as a
political party for its political goals would have to be changed and its
armed cadres would need to serve in Indian units. In addition, AFSPA
should be removed from Nagaland and other parts of the northeast as a
Confidence-Building Measure.
There are problems
within Nagaland itself, not to be confused with the demands for a united
Naga homeland that the NSCN has been making. Thus, the Eastern Nagaland
People’s Organization wants a Frontier Nagaland state to be carved out
of four districts inhabited by six tribes, saying they have not
benefited economically or politically over the past decades.
These
show how tough the road to accord will be. Other militant groups may
cry foul but must be persuaded that this is in the best interests of the
Nagas at a time of relative peace. The journey has been long in the
making, well over 60 years, and obviously an agreement will not satisfy
all groups. That is the nature of political dialogue and the process of
political resolution. But it should replace the ill-will and lack of
understanding that has long characterised relations between the Nagas
and the rest of India with goodwill.
(Sanjoy
Hazarika is Saifuddin Kitchelew Chair and Director of the Centre for
North East Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, and founder of
the Centre for North East Studies and Policy Research in the northeast.)