Naga sovereignty vis-a-vis 'integral part of India'
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: August 17, 2022 -

Can there be a sovereign Nation within a sovereign country? Can there be two sovereign Nations within a geo-political boundary? If so, everyone would like to know how such an arrangement would be made.

These questions are pertinent in the backdrop of the assertions of Nagaland Governor Prof Jagdish Mukhi and NSCN-IM supremo Thuingaleng Muivah.

Whereas Prof Jagdish Mukhi was claiming that Nagaland will ever remain an integral part of India, Th Muivah categorically reiterated "Sovereignty is our birthright".

It would be not only quite interesting but also prove to be a win-win formula if there can be a meeting point between a sovereign Nagalim and a Nagaland which is ever an integral part of India.

Otherwise, meaningful peace will ever remain elusive not only in Nagaland but also in the entire North East region.

Another very significant question which every stakeholder would like to ask is, whether the 25 years old political dialogue between the Government of India and NSCN-IM has brought the two entities anywhere nearer to a solution or the solution is still as far away as it was at the beginning of the dialogue process.

It appears there is a complete disconnect between the Government of India's standpoint and NSCN-IM's primary demands. Yes, Mr Muivah was talking about 'shared sovereignty'.

He said sovereignty of Nagaland should be with Naga people just as sovereignty of India lies with Indian people.

When neither the Government of India nor NSCN-IM leadership bothers to explain what exactly shared sovereignty is, it is either unintelligible or left to speculations.

Both the Government of India and NSCN-IM must not overlook the fact that too many stake holders are involved in the peace process.

However, interestingly the Government of India has so far made no indication about its willingness or unwillingness to accommodate the sovereignty of Nagas within the sovereignty of India.

At the same time, many observers cannot help asking themselves whether the sovereignty talk is being used just as a bargaining chip by the NSCN-IM leadership.

If one goes by media reports, separate flag and separate constitution are the only two stumbling blocks towards sealing a final settlement to the protracted political dialogue.

But again, the demand for separate flag and separate constitution is quite logical if the same demand is juxtaposed with NSCN-IM's insistence on sovereignty or shared sovereignty.

It is now discernible without any difficulty that the quest for separate flag and constitution is central to the NSCN-IM's idea of sovereignty or 'shared sovereignty'.

Whereas the Government of India has unequivocally ruled out any possibility of a separate flag and constitution for the Nagas, the NSCN-IM has been steadfastly sticking to the same demand.

These contradictory standpoints are unmistakable indications that the negotiation is far from over.

To break the deadlock, either of the two negotiating parties or both must concede something or they must go back to the negotiating table.

New Delhi needs to learn a lesson or two from the Shillong Accord, even if the objective conditions have changed, before dictating any kind of solution to the long drawn political dialogue.

In fact, the Shillong Accord was the immediate and most prominent factor for the rise of NSCN after their leaders split from the NNC leadership.

All stakeholders, particularly New Delhi must take all perspectives into account and work meticulously so that the much awaited final solution does not turn out to be another Shillong Accord.

At the end, one would like to ask, "Can there be any room for sovereignty or shared sovereignty, when the demands for separate flag and separate constitution have been rejected outright".