Grounds for political negotiations : The conditions conundrum
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: October 18, 2012 -
'Without pre-condition' as understood within the context of any negotiation between two feuding parties may also be a condition.
On the other hand it could also mean that the premise from which the negotiation should kick start is a mutually agreed one, which may again be interpreted as a condition.
Indeed there is something vague about the parameters on which political engagements or dialogues between two feuding groups rests and this is all that more so when there is a thick veil surrounding the talk process.
The ongoing political dialogue between the Government of India and the NSCN (IM) is a case in point. However this should not blind the people to the point that it is on the ground of this vagueness that the two feuding parties can explore and study the means through which the talk process can carry forward.
A room created for exploring, which may lead to errors but which nonetheless can guide the future course of the dialogue. Acknowledging this is perhaps the first step to enter the discussion room from the jungles.
Acknowledging this may be more important for the political establishment which has for long been 'extending' the hands of political dialogue to the rebel groups active and operating in Manipur.
This perspective may perhaps explain to an extent why the major armed groups of Manipur have refused to come to the negotiating table so far. Keeping the door open for dialogue or political negotiation is not enough.
Extending a hand outside the door may be just what political analysts or contemporary observers of the situation here may prescribe. That the players concerned, read the political establishment, are not overly enthusiastic about following this prescription perhaps explains the deadlock.
Everyone agrees that the armed rebellion in Manipur is a political issue. Everyone talks about the need for a dialogue to resolve the issue.
Yet this has mostly remained in the realm of lip service. The refusal to confer the status of political prisoners on many of the rebel leaders who are currently under custody is an extension of this lip service syndrome.
Delhi and Imphal need to think out of the box. This may be easier said than done, as the militaristic approach has taken deep roots-best exemplified by the stoic refusal to do away with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, that confers extraordinary power on the military.
Any political engagement between two feuding parties has to first identify a starting block. A kick off point. Once this is done, then the process may start.
This is not to say that either of the two parties should shed their political beliefs. Conditions or sans pre-conditions should have no bearing for initiating a process of talking things over the negotiating table.
This of course should not be confused with ground rules, for ground rules are not about the parameters within which the talk should be held.
The basic point is, all negotiations should be about the readiness to explore points, exchange ideas and views, argue, debate and study the direction towards which it flows.
Deadlocks should have a lifespan too. Or else it would not be about differences of political ideologies but would boil down to plain recalcitrance.
The Government must take the lead in demonstrating that the call for political dialogue does not remain in the realm of lip service, forever.
* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.