Without territorial limits & its official implications
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: July 28, 2014 -

The Ukhrul siege or deployment of additional security forces to thwart possible subversive activities, depending on which side you are, has finally put to rest all the ambiguities about the ambit of the NSCN-IM-Government of India cease fire agreement.

Notwithstanding the Naga rebel group’s contestation that the cease fire is without territorial limits, Government of India’s Cease Fire Monitoring Group chairman Lieutenant General (Retd) NK Singh has made crystal clear that the cease fire agreement and its ambit is restricted to the State of Nagaland only.

On July 27, 2001 New Delhi has conveyed to the NSCN-IM that the three words ‘without territorial limits’ would be deleted from the June 14, 2001 agreement after the protests which claimed several lives in Manipur. NK Singh was thus quoted in media.

He went on record that the words ‘without territorial limits’ is non-existent now in the cease fire agreement.

The connotation is obvious. If ‘without territorial limits’ is non-existent, there exists limits and it is limited to Nagaland and Nagaland alone.

NSCN-IM’s contention that the cease fire agreement is a bilateral pact and it should not be modified or rectified at the convenience of a single party has its own merits.

If the decision of the Government of India to delete the three (in)famous words, as claimed by Lt Gen (Retd) NK Singh, was conveyed to the NSCN-IM leadership in 2001, then one cannot help asking whether New Delhi has been dictating terms and calling shots from the early stages of the peace talk.

This is interesting as well as intriguing given the fact that the controversial phrase ‘without territorial limits’ was a site of contestation all these years till the other day before NK Singh came up with the illuminating clarification.

In fact, till the other day, the controversial phrase was a site of contest for different parties involving vanguards of Manipur integrity, State of Manipur, champions of Naga integration and NSCN-IM itself.

It was and is still a political paradox that NSCN-IM clings to its own idea of the cease fire agreement being unrestricted to any territory, and its cadres are operating in the State of Manipur while the Government of Manipur has been trying to convince itself that cease fire agreement is ineffective in Manipur.

NK Singh’s ground breaking revelation that the cease fire agreement does not extend beyond the State of Nagaland is pregnant with implications.

First, the Government of India, through this clarification has re-established its dominant position with regard to the ongoing political negotiation with the Naga rebel group.

By officially restricting the cease fire agreement within the territory of Nagaland, New Delhi rang out an implicit message that only Nagaland and no other States fits within the scope of the political dialogue.

This message was quite intelligible when the Government of India refused to intervene after Manipur Police raided an NSCN-IM camp at Ukhrul and arrested some of its cadres this month.

Another reading is that New Delhi is not happy with NSCN-IM imposing its writs outside their designated camps in Nagaland.

One pertinent question is, how the Government of Manipur would react/respond to NSCN-IM activities within the State after Government of India has made it clear that the cease fire agreement is effective only in Nagaland.

Yes, the Government of Manipur has been maintaining all along that there is no cease fire and there is no designated camp of NSCN-IM in the State.

This is the official version but the ground reality says otherwise. Remember, the tense stand-off between Assam Rifles and NSCN-IM at Siroy in January 2009.

NSCN-IM or no NSCN-IM, excessive militarization is undesirable. Rather, the State Government must focus on uniform socio- economic development of the State.