|
Talking to the Nagas:
Read their lips
By Sanjoy Hazarika
It is now more than four-and-a-half years since the dominant Naga militant group entered into a ceasefire with the Government. There have been several meetings between Isak Chishi Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah, Chairman and General Secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (I-M), with prime ministers, beginning with H.D. Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Though the ''collective leadership'' of Swu and Muivah has been unchanged since 1988, the Naga movement itself split three ways: the umbrella Naga National Council (NNC) which has now shrunk in clout and members and is limited to a handful of tribes: the NSCN (I-M) and its immediate rival with the same name and a big difference - the initial K, after its founder S.S. Khaplang.
The divisions remain sharp, reflected in the killing of six members of the K-group by their rivals in Dimapur on January 18. A Ceasefire Monitoring Group, headed by Lt.-General Ramesh Kulkarni, exists but it lacks the teeth or backing by the Center to be truly effective.
The talks have been with the I-M group although a ceasefire is formally in place with the K faction. There is no such ceasefire with the NNC, which carries the impressive tag of the Federal Government of Nagaland while the other two identify themselves in their press notes as the 'Government of the Peoples Republic of Nagaland'.
In the years of the ceasefire, civil society groups have found voice, speaking out firmly against inter-group violence, intimidation and extortion as well as human rights violations by the security forces. They have demanded that the factions honor the peace process. These pressures are no longer brushed aside by the armed groups as in the past, for they have seen the stake that Nagas have developed in peace.
That is why the second consultation between civil society groups and the NSCN (I-M) at Bangkok earlier this month assumes particular significance. The first consultation took place in the NSCN headquarters four years ago in Nagaland and ended abruptly because I-M leaders were not prepared for a dialogue though people's representatives wanted one. Not less than 44 Nagas from the North-East met with Swu, Muivah and their associates between January 7 and 11. Accounts of the discussions from participants show greater openness among the leaders than before and a determination among civil society groups not to be bulldozed into following a particular line.
One must also remember that groups involved in independence struggles are unlikely to indicate that they are prepared to climb down, at least in statements issued for public consumption. While the opening remarks in the statement issued by the NGOs (and not by the I-M) are as full of angry rhetoric as anything one has heard in the past - and even urges Great Britain to clarify its position on ''the Naga people and their land which India claims to have inherited from the then British-India''.
This new line is unlikely to go down well in India, especially with the Government. The statement is unambiguous in its claim that the current negotiations with the Government of India ''assert our people's resolve and commitment to honor our history and our rights which we hold to be sacred to us and our vision for the future.'' And while claiming that the present process is to ''put right the unjust legacy of colonialism'', the statement then declares that what is sought is a ''negotiated settlement - that will be honorable and acceptable to both sides.'' It is clear to all that sovereignty for the Nagas is not a settlement that the Government of India can regard as either acceptable or honorable. Yet, there is not a single mention of the word sovereignty in the whole statement, which runs five pages, including the names of the participants.
Otherwise, in every major Naga declaration this word occurs at regular intervals. There are references to the ''struggle for self-determination'', the ''referendum'' of 1951, which voted overwhelmingly for an independent Naga nation, that the Nagas are ''a people'' who were continuing to resist the ''occupation of our nation by the States of India and Burma.''
Rhetoric is all very well. But when we get down to the details of this particular Bangkok Declaration, it is quite positive - it demands the same standards of the Naga armed fighters as it does of the Indian security forces (to stay within the limits of their camps, agreed to in the ceasefire in January 2001); it seeks the inclusion of civil society groups in the ceasefire monitoring mechanism (this association of NGOs was earlier rejected by the I-M); it also calls for an end to the bans on Naga militant groups and withdrawal of draconian laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and arrest warrants against their leaders.
The last request shows that Muivah and Swu are serious about returning home after more than 36 years and holding consultations with Indian civil society groups and leaders as well as with their Naga brethren. Both had, in principle, agreed to come back to India for further negotiations without specifying a time, when Vajpayee told them in Osaka that it would be far easier to hold formal dialogues within the country.
The I-M regards the continuance of Nagaland Chief Minister S.C. Jamir as an obstacle to a settlement. Jamir, an implacable foe of the I-M, having survived several attempts on his life, asserts that the group is unrepresentative of the Nagas. He is seen as well-disposed toward the K group, which moves around freely in parts of the state.
What is equally significant is that the I-M has agreed not to arrive at a settlement with the Government without consulting Naga groups. Not only that, Muivah and Swu told the delegates - although this is not mentioned in the statement - that while they would not initiate unity talks with other factions, they would leave such moves to the Naga Hoho, the umbrella grouping of all Naga tribes.
The new emphasis on reconciliation among the Nagas, an effort which goes hand in hand with the peace process and which began in December 2001, was also backed by the I-M. ''There is a mellowing of the leadership,'' said one participant. During a lengthy interview with this writer last April, Muivah declared that Nagas would have to understand the ''difficulties of the Indian Government'' just as the latter would need to understand their compulsions.
Indeed, the settlement of the Naga imbroglio is encapsulated in this crisp political view, for it takes into consideration all points of view and possibilities. It will not be easy but the time is now right for a formation of a political platform through the aegis of the Naga Hoho which would bring together the various factions - after all, they have a common goal, despite being at each other's throats!
(Courtesy: The Indian Express)
|
Welcome! 
International
Features
