Naga Talks: Landmarks and Little Else
23 May, 2002 · 759
Bibhu Prasad Routray expresses scepticism over the progress of the Naga talks and advocates a change of track
It now appears that the Naga negotiation process is resulting in the establishment of landmark events but little else. The August 1997 ceasefire agreement with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) was considered a landmark event to usher peace into the State. Each subsequent extension of the ceasefire was also important to keep the peace process on track. The
Osaka
meet between Prime Minister Vajpayee and the leaders of the NSCN-IM on 7 December 2001 was hailed as another landmark. The 20 December 2001 effort by the Naga Hoho, the apex tribal council that launched a reconciliation effort in Kohima, was also another landmark. An equally important landmark concluded on 10 May 2002 in
Bangkok
when the NSCN-IM leadership held deliberations with 100-odd civil society representatives and tribal leaders from Nagaland.
Bangkok
followed a round of negotiations between the NSCN-IM leadership and the chief negotiator of the Union government, K Padmanabaiah, at the same venue. The latter was reported to have stated that even though ‘no dramatic development has taken place, the talks are on the right track’. During the four-day seminar between the NSCN-IM and the various Naga bodies from the State, Isak Chisi Swu, Chairman of the outfit said, “The present peace process is rough sailing.... We have now been able to create international opinion and draw attention of many countries. The Nagas can no longer be suppressed by any power.” The very next day, on 8 May 2002 , the General Secretary, Th. Muivah said, “Indian government’s commitment towards the Naga people is unstable and it frequently takes dramatic turn. If the historic facts of the Nagas are not acknowledged, there cannot be any headway in the Naga talks.”
Osaka
. The possibilities of the NSCN-IM leadership holding the next round of talks on Indian soil and loose talk of their contesting the forthcoming elections in the State are unfulfilled wishes.
Amsterdam
, manages the public relations of the outfit. The presence of senior officials of the Unrepresented Nation’s People’s Organisation (UNPO) in the four-day
Bangkok
meet is a pointer to the fact that the outfit has not given up its efforts to create international opinion in favour of establishing an independent Nagaland. The Indian government’s policy of protecting the internal nature of the conflict (so evident in its handling of the
Kashmir
issue) has not taken cognisance of this fact.
India
does not have any legal control over them.
One could have little to complain against such exercises. After all, peace making is a slow and tedious process that involves the smoothening of many ruffled feathers, but, the basic lack of any concrete results from such exercises leads one to doubt their utility to evolve a peaceful settlement of the Naga imbroglio. What we have are contradictory statements.
Significantly, the recent exercise in
It is important to analyse these three statements in the context of the ongoing Naga peace talks. Padmanabaiah, by his own admission, concedes that nothing concrete has emerged even after five months of the landmark meeting in
Isak’s statement brings out the real motives of the NSCN-IM, i.e. under the garb of peace talks its leadership wants to internationalise the issue. In fact, they have succeeded in this endeavour to a large extent, evident from the presence of a large band of sympathisers in various countries. The Naga International Support Centre (NISC), based in the Dutch city of
Muivah’s statement brings out the uncompromising nature of the NSCN-IM’s stance. Over the years it has harped on the historic independence of the Nagas which, according to it, should act as the basis for the creation of an independent Naga country. The NSCN-IM claims that the Nagas have always been independent, and
All these factors point to a grim scenario emerging, more so, because the Indian government has placed great faith in the success of the Naga peace talks. The policy makers believe that a successful conclusion of the negotiation process would result in bringing peace to the Northeast. That hope might end in despair.
What needs to be done? Very little, indeed, unless the policy of wearing down the NSCN-IM leaders by engaging them in a protracted negotiation process is abandoned. Talks must be directed towards a purpose. Without it, the appointment of another negotiator like the Mizoram Chief Minister, Zoramthanga, is likely to be unproductive. Alternatively, the Union government needs to bring out a package for the State to address the concerns of their civilian population. This package could include measures like strengthening the traditional institutions; initiate effective developmental programmes, and so on. Otherwise, we would be witnessing the establishment of many landmark events towards peace, without an end in sight.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
