NAGALAND celebrates its 47th anniversary of statehood this Wednesday (1 December). The first to be carved out of Assam, it has the distinction of being under the Union external affairs ministry for some years but another characteristic feature involves the Naga peace process and the use of the word “ceasefire” in the September 1964 agreement with the Federal Government of Nagaland, the armed wing of the Naga National Council. Some scholars say the term is inappropriate and argue that according to international law “ceasefire” can be used only when two nations are involved. Adding to this school of thought was the involvement of a foreigner, the Rev Michael Scott, in the Peace Mission, the two others being former Assam chief minister Bimala Prasad Chaliha and Sarvodaya leader Jaya Prakash Narayan.
How Nagaland came into being makes for interesting reading. Following the armed uprising by the Naga National Council under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the Naga Hills district was declared disturbed and the Army was inducted in 1956. In fact, Phizo had declared Naga independence on 14 August 1947 and conducted a plebiscite in 1951 in which 99.9 per cent Nagas voted for independence. They boycotted the first general elections in 1952.
Apparently exasperated with continued violence, some moderates among the rebels formed the Naga People’s Convention in 1957, the intention being to act as facilitator between the Centre and underground leaders, but ambition got the better of them and they sought a short-cut to popularity by going all out for a political settlement. The Centre accepted their proposal to create the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area in 1957 under a deputy commissioner. In July 1960, the NPC signed a 16-point agreement, the opening paragraph of which reads: The territories that were heretofore known as the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area under the Naga Hills Tuensang Act 1957 shall form a state within the Indian Union and be thereafter known as Nagaland.
Nagas got their separate state but not peace. The NSCN(IM), at present engaged in the peace process with the Centre, is yet to reconcile itself to the creation of Nagaland, which actually divided the Nagas and but for which a political solution could have been found a long time back.
The NSCN(IM) is against any involvement of the present Nagaland government in talks, nor does it favour the people’s participation. And yet it has said that at every political step it takes it would consult the people.
Many wonder what future government structure there will be in the event of a negotiated settlement with the outfit. Will it have its own civil set-up and render the present one redundant? A pointer of sorts was dropped as early as in 2004 when the NSCN(IM) advertised in a Dimapur-based daily inviting applications for the posts of under-secretary and section officers. All applicants were to be Nagas and the insertion was quite specific about candidates and their tribes — a dark hint of tribalism.
Since the formation of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation in 2008, the fratricidal killings between two NSCN factions have subsided and top leaders of the three warring factions even met in Dimapur last September, raising hopes that in course of time they would finally realize that unity alone could achieve their aspirations.
Today, Nagaland is peaceful, but not quite what the people expected after the August 1997 ceasefire. Instead, there is a widespread sense of insecurity because of the rampant extortions. It is not clear whether all such cases are the handiwork of extremists, but the fact that not only are the rich and business community being harassed and intimidated but even commoners is indicative of how even anti-social elements in the guise of being militants are having a field day. Who will step up to stop this growing social menace?