The ceasefire with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland–Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) is poised for another extension beyond July 31, amidst lingering hopes and aspirations that the solution to the five-decade long conflict would bring in peace to the State. The involvement of the civil society in the process of peace making has remained at a significantly high level symbolizing an intense yearning for peace among the common populace. However, there are apparent signs that it is neither the voice of the common people nor that of the high-profile civil society organizations.

The recent NSCN-IM press statement expressing anguish over the inclusion of two Naga intellectuals in the Reconciliation Commission, set up under the auspices of the Naga Hoho (the apex tribal council) to strive towards greater understanding among the thirty-odd Naga tribes, created great deal of consternation among civil society organizations. However, after a brief interlude of criticisms and expressions of despair, opinions have started falling in line with that of the NSCN-IM.

The Naga struggle for a sovereign land is as much a struggle between the insurgent outfits as a conflict between different tribes under the generic expression, “the Nagas.” Tribal differences continue to persist and act as bottlenecks on the way of arriving at a consensus. This reflects not only on the composition and functioning of the civil society organizations but also on the political set up in the State.

The Naga Hoho, the Church, the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) and the Naga Mothers’ Association (NMA) have constantly been talking of reconciliation among the Naga tribes before a common struggle for Naga independence. Where as the tribes have been encouraged by the Hoho to give up their differences for the sake of the Naga dream, outfits like the NSCN-IM have put conditionalities on the very process of reconciliation making support mandatory to its engagement with the government of India. The fact that the achievement of the one and half year old reconciliation process has remained a minimum is a pointer at the deep schism among the tribes and the outfits. Interestingly, the so called “divide and rule” policy of the Indian government, a common excuse taken recourse to many Naga organizations, including the insurgent outfits, is certainly not a factor in aggravating the divide.

The weakness of the civil society organizations is intrinsically linked to the dramatic growth of NSCN-IM’s impudence. Over dependency on the latter, primarily because of its preponderant martial capability, has made the outfit hog limelight at the cost of other groups and factions, even to the extent of sidelining such organizations politically. Thus, intermittent appeals for broad basing the negotiation process has failed to break much ice. Additionally, the Isak-Muivah faction remains completely dismissive of the standing of other outfits. The Naga National Council has been described as “a politically dead outfit” and intellectuals like Niketu Iralu and Charles Chasie criticized as persons “who persistently try to justify the traitors and collaborators in the name of unity and reconciliation.” The uncontested support to the outfit has been the reason behind the undoing of the civil society in the State today.

The NSCN-IM’s objection to the Reconciliation Commission’s composition is as much an assertion of its perceived standing in the State today as a well-intended move to suppress voices of difference. Niketu Iralu, in some of his writings, had highlighted the concerns of the neighbouring States to the Naga dream. In a recent article, he wrote, “Naga reconciliation and ability to speak with one voice will strengthen the Naga case, but it will not automatically guarantee a workable and honourable settlement to the Naga issue.” Indeed, the greatest challenge to the realization of a dream of independent Nagaland would not be from the Union government, as NSCN-IM would like the common people to believe, but from states like Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, who would continue to be Nagaland’s neighbour in case of an implausible realization of Nagalim. If the incidents of June 2001 in Manipur are any indication, hopes of integrating the Naga-inhabited areas under a single administrative unit is nothing short of a fantasy.

A battle hardened outfit like the NSCN-IM and its dexterous leaders are expected to know this. Recently, the outfit, through its Dutch protagonist – the Naga International Support Centre (NISC) – unveiled an idea of settling the Naga population in the neighbouring States and Myanmar together, in Nagaland. However, such an idea received a cold response and has been abandoned. The ability to chalk out alternative action plans and the conviction to make them acceptable to the rival groups characterizes the dilemma of the Naga movement today. Solution to a unique situation like Nagaland’s will have to emerge from the deliberation and exchange of ideas, not through censorship and deliberate moves to dictate terms, even by fellow Nagas among themselves.