Indo-Naga Second Ceasefire, 1997 : An analysis
- Part 3 -

Dr Gairiangmei Maringmei *

Students rally in Ukhrul demanding 'Alternative Arrangement' on 25th November 2011 :: Pix - Jimmy Leivon

What makes the Naga issue more complex is that the United Naga Council (UNC) demands of Alternative Arrangement for all the four Naga inhabited districts of Manipur i.e., Senapati, Chandel, Tamenglong and Ukhtrul districts. Explaining its stand what it meant by "Alternative Arrangement", the UNC said that there is nothing anti-State or anti-Nation in their demand.

This explanation of UNC is not satisfactory to public as well as to the concern authority. UNC has been intensifying democratic movement within Manipur for control of areas where Nagas are living. In this connection, Manipur state has severe objections and the role of its Government is crucial.

The Eastern Naga People's Organisation (ENPO) demanded a separate "Frontier Nagaland" state within the Nagaland which comprising of four eastern districts of Nagaland: Longleng, Mon, Kiphire and Tuensang. The main reason for the ENPO's move has been a 'step-motherly' treatment and no economic development in the four districts by the Nagaland government for a long time.

The ENPO's demand is, however, considered a setback for the NSCN (IM) that has been engaged in peace talks with the GoI. The NSCN (IM)'s key demand is for the unification of all Naga inhabited areas comprising the entire Nagaland and some areas of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam.

There have been challenges and hurdles before the current peace talks. The contending parties have also been able to some extent overcome some of the problems, but there are many contentious issues including the main substance of the issue. Lack of political will and commitment on the part of the GoI has been a great hurdle for the political negotiations. In the past also, lack of political will and insincere approaches were the major obstacles.

In June 1947, Sir Akbar Hydari, the then Assam Governor and Naga National Council (NNC) entered into an agreement known as the Nine Point Agreement (Hydari Agreement). There was a ten-year guarantee of this provision at the end of which the NNC had the option to extend the Agreement period or to go for new arrangement regarding the future of the Naga people. Under the Agreement, the NNC leaders were also promised the "unification of Naga inhabited areas" from nearby districts into the Naga Hills District.

However, the GoI refused to ratify the Hydari Agreement. Again in July 1960, the Sixteen Point Agreement was arrived between the GoI and Naga leaders; under the agreement it stated that the consolidation of contiguous Naga inhabited areas to join the Nagaland state. This agreement in regards to integration of Naga inhabited areas is unfulfilled till today.

The unilateral abrogation of the Indo-Naga First Ceasefire of 1964 by India resulted in the resumption of heavy fighting between the Indian Arms Forces and the Naga Armies. Nagas consider these three above mentioned agreements are the contradictions and betrayal to Nagas by GoI.

The general Naga public is still apprehensive of the commitment and seriousness of the GoI to resolve the Indo-Naga conflict, keeping in view of the past experiences. Even in the current ceasefire between the two entities, the GoI seemed to have adopted the same policy of the past.

The insincere approach of the GoI could be seen that the rolling back of the terms "without territorial limits" from the Bangkok Agreement of June 14, 2001. There have been allegations charges and counter charges of violations of ceasefire ground rules by the NSCN (IM) and also by the Indian Armies. The violation of ceasefire ground rules by NSCN (IM) too cannot be denied. However, the violations of ceasefire rules by the GoI and the lack of sincerity and commitment to the peace process by and large that many observers came to know.

On 11 July, 2002, the GoI in a Joint Communiqué with the NSCN (IM) recognized the "unique history and situation of the Nagas". Though, the GoI recognized the "unique history and situation of the Naga people", but it does not make much sense because the GoI has considerably failed to seek a solution based on such recognition.

The banning of the proposed visit of Muivah to Manipur state on 30 April, 2010 and the stopping of Isaak Swu and Muivah to visit Zunheboto on 14 January, 2012 were directly contradicting the principles of political talks and violating the ceasefire ground rules. Anthony Ningkhan Shimray, the Foreign Affairs In charge of NSCN (IM) was arrested on 27 September, 2010 from Kathmandu airport, and he was in fact actively participated in the Indo-Naga peace talks as a member of the negotiating team.

His detention in the midst of peace talks has raised numerous questions about the GoI's sincerity and commitment towards bringing a lasting solution to the vexed Naga issue and this act is a deterrent to the peace process.

There have been lots of confusions between the roles of Prime Minister Office and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in dealing with Indo-Naga ceasefire.

The former is supposed to be negotiating with the NSCN (IM) leaders, but many times the latter interfered and came out contradiction statements.

As Shambhu Singh, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (North East in-charge) statement appeared in the media saying: "If we don't take all three factions into account, no kind of agreement is going to succeed. It will be a futile exercise to reach an agreement with one group".

NSCN (IM) leaders have reacted to Shambu Singh's statement and reminded the GoI that it had committed to issue official statements only through the Prime Minister, Home Minister or the Government of India's Chief Interlocutor. NSCN (IM) leaders also reminded that the former Prime Minister of India, P.V. Narasimha Rao had "particularly chosen" the NSCN (IM) "as the only potential partner to initiate talks on the Naga political settlement".

Various draconian laws have been adopted by the GoI as measures to legitimize its anti-democratic policies towards the Naga people. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, National Security Act, Nagaland Security Regulation etc., are against the democratic polity, violation of human rights, and it proves counter-productive. Thus, such laws prevailing in the Northeast region are anti-peace initiative.

Lack of unity among the Nagas is a great challenge to bring about a lasting solution to the Indo-Naga conflict. Unity is possible only when the all parties: NSCN (IM), NSCN (K), NNC, Naga people and other stake holders are willing to cast off their primordial and narrow loyalties and sacrifice for the larger interest of the Nagas. Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR), Naga Churches leaders, and civil society organizations leaders have been trying their level best to bring all the factions at one platform for the sake of brotherhood and unity of the Nagas.

The Indo-Naga ceasefire unending process has something to do with new demands like UNC's Alternative Arrangement in Manpur, the ENPO's for "Frontier Nagaland state" within Nagaland, and the formation of new arms groups such as Manipur Naga Revolutionary Front, Zeliangrong United Front, Pakan Army etc.

In the initial stage of ceasefire negotiation, both negotiating parties followed the Declaration of the Ceasefire agreement based on the following three conditions: a) Without any condition; b) At the Prime Minister's level; and c) In a third country.

To be continued...