FrontPage

Manipur

Profiles

Features

Potpourri

Opinions

Editorials

Books 

Links

Photos

Archives

International Features

Business

Finance

Internet

Media

Technology

International Relations

Features >> February 18

Talking peace & conflict dynamics with K Padmanabhaiah- I
By Binalakshmi Nepram

Parliament may by law:
(a) form a new state by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any state,
(b) increase the area of any State,
(c) diminish the area of any State,
(d) alter the boundaries of any State,
(e) alter the name of any State,

Provided that no bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.

On a bright Delhi December winter morning, sitting in Room Number 226 of Shastri Bhawan, Parliament Street, K Padmanabhiah, the Indian Prime Minister's Emissary in the Naga Peace Talks read out to me the above lines from the Indian Constitution.

This meeting with Padmanabhaiah was a result of a seminar that was held on September 17, 2001 in which Nikitu Iralu, member of the Naga Hoho had spoken on the Naga Peace Process at India International Center, New Delhi. During that seminar I had raised a couple of questions that include - what the word "Naga" really mean and the controversy surrounding many of the smaller tribes in Manipur whether they are really Nagas or Kukis or just unique tribes in themselves? I also raised that question whether the NSCN (IM) can be seen as the torchbearer of all the Naga tribes. And if that is so, why did they kill many illustrious civil society people from other Naga tribes who opposed their movement?

I listened attentively as Padmanabhaiah continued saying that morning that Articles 3 and 4 of the Indian Constitution fully safeguards the boundary of any State, if the State concerned does not want to. And that the people of Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh should not have been in that state of frenzy as it were during the anti-ceasefire agitation days (June-July 2001).

After the two and a half hour meeting, I rushed back to my University and opened D.D. Basu's Introduction to the Constitution of India. It was the eighteenth issue and I turned to page 69 and stumbled upon the following words: "By a simple majority and by the ordinary legislative process Parliament may form new States or alter the boundaries, etc. of existing States and thereby change the political map of India." 

What was alarming were the following lines and I quote:
The only conditions laid down for the making of such a law are - 
a) No Bill for the purpose can be introduced except on the recommendation of the President, 
b) The President shall, before giving his recommendation, refer the Bill to the legislature of the State, which is going to be affected by the changes proposed in the Bill, for expressing its views on the changes within the period specified by the President. The President is not, however, bound by the views of the State Legislature, so ascertained.

The fact, however, still remains, and that is, the people of Manipur are still reeling from the "Territorial Insecurity Syndrome" that was unleashed after the June 14, 2001 Bangkok Agreement. Threads of ruptured ethnic bonding are still yet to be woven. Post-June 14, 2001 phenomenon is yet to crystallize into some positive development. In the words of Padmanabhaiah: "The Nagas told me that they thought that the Government of India was their only enemy. Now, after the ceasefire backlash, they seem to have found a better enemy in the Meiteis." Six
months later, the dust is yet to settle down. In fact, a whole new Pandora's Box seemed to have opened. The people of states like Manipur are indeed living in a time of great challenges!

As the meeting continued over hot cups of Sri Lankan tea, Padmanabhaiah suddenly reasoned:

Imphal Valley is like a Heart. Just as the Heart cannot survive without the Body, neither can Body survive without the Heart.

Here, he was referring to the "Hills of Manipur" as "the Body" He further continued: The issue of Ceasefire and Territory are like Chalk and Cheese. The two are simply different.

He further continued saying that even in the NDA government manifesto, it was written clearly that the territorial boundaries of the North-East States would be preserved. He explained: Ceasefire means simply "To cease firing". It means no fighting, so as to create conducive atmosphere for peaceful negotiations. He reasoned: "How can you agree to stop fighting in this room and then go out and fight elsewhere?" Padmanabhaiah reiterated that he made it very clear to the NSCN (IM) leaders that extending ceasefire territory is in no way a recognition of their demand for an independent Nagalim, nor is it a recognition of the Nagalim areas that the NSCN (IM) have put forth.

Very succinctly, Padmanabhaiah put it and I quote him: The NSCN (IM) may want the moon.... It does not mean that We (government of India) will give it.
The earlier ceasefire agreements have, according to Padmanabhiah, brought down a lot of violence in Nagaland as Table 1 shows.

Naga violence, thus, according to Padmanabhaiah, has come down. According to him, as the table shows, 242 have been killed in the three years prior to the ceasefire [i.e. before 1997] and the casualties came down substantially in the three years after the 1997 ceasefire. The number of casualties stood at a total of 44 from 1998 to 2001. Meanwhile, violence in Manipur is on the rise as Table II shows.

As the Table II shows, violence committed in Manipur show a total of 448 three years before the ceasefire in 1997 and a total of 368 in three years after the ceasefire.

The Naga rebels were ready to come to the negotiating table whereas the Meitei rebels did not want to do the same. This was what the Prime Minister's emissary said in reply to my question as to why the Government of India is only concentrating on the Naga insurgents. That NSCN (IM) is the Mother of Insurgencies in North-East India states is a known fact. The outfit is powerful and is like an umbrella organization for many other insurgent groups in the area.

As the developments in the post-June 14, 2001 Agreement showed, inspite of all the possible explanations given that justifies the extension of ceasefire to Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, the mandate of the people of the above three states overwhelmingly echoed the slogan: "No to Ceasefire Without Territorial Limits." 

The Government of India has to keep this in mind when they further continue to engage the NSCN (IM) in bringing about a peaceful solution to the protracted Naga conflict. Also, if the government of India is genuinely interested in solving the protracted social armed conflicts that are raging in the North-East region, then they should, first of all, help in healing the ruptured bonds, especially, between the Meiteis and other tribes of Manipur. 

It is not to be left to individuals, NGOs and other civil society people alone! It is also equally an important time for the responsible civil society people of Manipur, especially, of the Meitei community to come forward and build a New Manipur, which is not fracture along ethnic lines. Here, the role of all the women of the 31 communities that reside in Manipur is of utmost importance.

History stands testimony to the fact that it was the Manipuri women who
spearheaded the exploitative anti-colonial movement [Nupi Lan and Rani
Gaidinlu's contributions]. Who can forget the march of over 4,000 women in November 1998 in Churachandpur District? That massive rally, which is one of the largest women's rallies ever to be organized led the Kuki and Tangkhul elders to come to the negotiating table to bring an end to the bloody Kuki-Tangkhul clash which led to the death of over 2000 men, women and children.

We - all the people residing in Manipur and elsewhere need to think, act and work together constructively before further damage is done. We need to leave a safe, secure and peaceful Manipur before we all perish from this Earth. Else, the coming generation will grow to condemn us!

As I walked out of 226, Sardar Patel Bhawan, words of the PM's Emissary continue to ring in my ears: "A new generations is coming up in Manipur and Nagaland - A generation who sees no future in violence and war. I may not succeed in my efforts at bringing peace but I have tremendous hope and faith that this upcoming new generation will bring a peaceful change in this war-torn region."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Reproduced from the MRFD bulletin, December 2001 issue.)