The demands for ‘solution before election’ are escalating from various quarters. With the Naga Hoho, the Apex tribal body of Nagas, upping the ante and asking the people “to gear up and defend the inherent rights of the Naga people and not to allow holding of election in our land,” the situation looks primed for another confrontation.
Nearly one year since the upheaval against holding election of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), the state of affairs in Nagaland seems to be heading on a collision course over another electoral challenge. While first one was against the Nagaland State Government; this time round it appears to be against Union Government - with higher stakes and bigger ramifications.
There are two undercurrents currently blowing in the Naga Society. While on one hand, the politicians and political parties as well as the general public being in an active electioneering mode, the other being the exact replica of last year's crisis, a sense of extreme trepidation and uncertainty.
Just before the ULB crisis last year, Nagaland Government went into an overdrive inaugurating new towns and adhoc town committees. This time, despite adopting a resolution in no less than the State Assembly itself, the state Government is yet again in an overdrive upgradating Sub-division and Town, besides a district. More might follow suit. Given the abhorrence for holding the election, the irony is too bland.
The unfolding situation calls for Naga organisations and the Government of India (GoI) to tread carefully to avoid dangerous confrontations, which might prove detrimental to the whole peace talk itself. A mixture of realistic and pragmatic approach is needed to come out of the current imbroglio.
So far, whatever has been elucidated from all stakeholders is hovering on the realms of idealism. One side (s) exacting an ‘acceptable and honourable solution;’ the other side promising the same without necessarily divulging any contours of such ‘solution.’
Again, the common preoccupation of many Nagas after signing of the Framework Agreement was the content or demand for its disclosure. Has that concern changed since the entry of other NNPGs in the fray? Will expediting the process make it a more transparent process?
From a realist perspective, while too many competing imperatives are put forward by different stakeholders, it basks on “competitive and conflictual side,” with self-preservation as the desired policy. The pursuit of national interest has been a vaunted established policy of the Bharatiya Janata Party and will be its core approach to the current talks.
The realist approach, tempered with little “pragmatism” usually understood politically as “driven largely by regard for good consequences” may pave a way.
The first step towards such approach to come to a realisation that the notion of “honourable and acceptable solution” will be an 'honourable compromise' for both sides – not necessarily a bad term, after all that is what negotiation is all about – not a zero-sum game but finding commonalities.
Antecedents and common sense would suggest that it is not about who is winning, but whether it is acceptable to parties involved.
The bigger problem for the Nagas, however, will be deciding the ultimate harbinger of the solution. The process of reconciliation, thus, should be the primary concern of the various tribal and civil society organisations, rather than fighting a constitutional mandate under the present arrangement.
