The extension of ceasefire between the Government of India (GoI) and NSCN (IM) was always on the cards as this was also the overwhelming desire of the people. While it will always remain questionable as to whether Delhi deserved such an extension given its insincerity for the last ten years since the ceasefire was first signed, the use of the term ‘indefinite’ extension is something new giving the peace process a fresh dimension. No one except those directly involved in the talks will be able to tell or understand precisely the agreed terms of such an ‘indefinite’ extension. If the wording of the joint statement is any indication, it could be that instead of the ceasefire determining the peace talks as was the case till now, it’s the other way round i.e. the indefinite extension has been signed under the condition or ‘subject to progress’ in the talks. Hopefully, as was suggested in this column, both sides would have put in place “a qualitatively better ceasefire” than the one that ruled the roost for ten long uneventful years.
If the logic behind this ‘indefinite’ extension is critically analyzed, the Indo-Naga peace process will either move forward at a much quicker pace or it will meet its slow and painful natural death. What all this entails is that there is now a higher premium being paid on the peace process, which is good news. While this will mean higher returns in terms of payoffs, all this also comes with a higher level of risk involved. It will be like investing in the highly volatile stock market with either big losses or huge gains being made. In economic parlance, the peace process appears to be moving from low risk low return to a level entailing higher returns and also greater risk. All this will also mean greater level of understanding each other’s needs and working for win-win situations.
In terms of effectiveness, this latest indefinite extension is a much better option as it will give an inbuilt momentum to the peace process which was clearly lacking for ten years. It may be mentioned here that on the day of the talks on July 31, an editorial in this column had also mentioned the need for the NSCN (IM) “to impart a sense of urgency to the endless of talks” and calling for “a more meaningful ceasefire and insisting on a result oriented mechanism to keep the process both relevant and time bound”. This appears to have been achieved on paper at least. The real achievement for both the Government of India and the Naga side will come only when it produces concrete results based on a give and take approach.
