Indo-Naga Second Ceasefire, 1997 : An analysis
- Part 4 -

Dr Gairiangmei Maringmei *

File pic of a cadre at Camp Hebron and Isak and Muivah :: Pix - TSE

But later on, both negotiating parties do not observe and follow to the agreed points and Naga leaders started negotiating with India's interlocutor like Swaraj Kaushal, former Governor of Mizoram, Padmanabhaiah, the former Home Secretary, GoI, R S Pandey, IAS retired, instead of Prime Minister of India.

According to the ceasefire agreement, the negotiation was supposed to be held in the third country, this is no longer observed currently. And the ceasefire indefinite extension period is another delaying tactic to bring about solution to the Indo-Naga conflict as shown in the progress. The reasons why both negotiating parties have not been abided and followed to the Ceasefire Agreement are best known to them.

More than seventeen years of Indo-Naga political negotiations have been long enough to bring about a peaceful lasting solution but this initiative has not been brought any substantive progress on the core issues so far. But it has created conducive atmospheres for continued engagement between the two entities. A relatively peaceful law and order and security situation has been prevailing in Naga inhabited areas.

The success of political negotiation for lasting peace depends considerably on how ably the both negotiating parties: the GoI and NSCN (IM) leaders overcome their own shortcomings and learn to appreciate others' difficulties and compulsions.

The first ceasefire process initiative of 1960s was derailed by many factors - the trust deficit, insincere, suspicion, inflexible mind-sets and preconceived notions. In order to bring the lasting peaceful solution to the protracted Indo-Naga problem, the GoI and the NSCN (IM) leaders need to learn the lessons from the mistakes of the past. Meaningful peace can be obtained only when both of them have a real desire to establish durable peace. Conducive atmosphere, mutual trust and confidence measure should be created for a meaningful dialogue. The peace talks should not be aimed to only benefit a single party group, but should be for the benefit of the both negotiating parties.

Engagement in the political negotiations must be based on sincerity and a real commitment for the final settlement. Both negotiating parties should make sure that they do not violate ceasefire ground rules. The negotiating parties should maintain maximum restraints, so that any act that could have a damaging or derailing effect on the peace process should be avoided. They should also explore for every possible meeting point for a political negotiation settlement.

The time bound ceasefire extension period should have set in motion and maintained without that it would go on indefinitely.

The NSCN (IM) collective leadership as the peace negotiator for their people has become imperative on their part to re-undertake extensive consultations with the Naga people. Communication gap and lack of unity amongst the Nagas could cause a hurdle to the peace process.

As they are the representative of the Nagas, they need to think a realistic about their demands for politically achievable. They should demonstrate commitment to solving the more than half century-old protracted ongoing conflict.

The GoI, on its part, should adopt pragmatic approach and take a bold decision to ensure that peace talks yield positive results. It is well-known fact that Indo-Naga conflict is a political problem. Indian leaders should realize that the Naga problem cannot be resolved by military might but through peaceful political means. They must recognize in letter and spirit the unique history of the Nagas and respect for their right to self-determination.

If the report is true, there has been a substantial shift in the idea of 'complete sovereignty' demanded by the Nagas.

They gave the peace talks a new lease of life by moving away from the idea of 'absolute sovereignty' and suggested a middle-path solution: shared sovereignty or special federation, in the hope that if the Government of India recognizes the 'Unique History and Situation of the Nagas', and respects the historical and cultural rights of the Nagas, a realistic and workable solution can be found.

On the question of the "integration of all Naga inhabited areas" or for the formation of a 'Greater Nagalim' comprising all Naga inhabited areas in the Northeast, the GoI should give up the negative position. This demand has been opposed by the states of Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. The GoI should be broadminded to take a bold decision and have a discussion with concerned neighbouring states i.e., Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh.The territorial integration can be easily accommodated within the Constitution of India, under its Article No. 3.

It requires a simple majority in the Parliament to form a new state, and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states. One may ask why the GoI is not applying this Article No. 3 of the Constitution of India to the Nagas people if at all Nagas desire, here the ball is in the court of the GoI. With the formation of Narendra Modi government at the Centre, new hopes and high expectations are there for a lasting solution to the age-old Indo-Naga conflict.

Whatever the limitations and obstacles surrounded to them, there is no human problem that cannot be solved if there is a will. All out efforts should be made to come out with a solution which will satisfy both the parties. No reconciliation and peace can be brought about without some give and take.

A radical change of attitude is needed from both parties: the Indian leaders and Naga leaders.

Concluded...