Coming together – a must

 

Government of India’s Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (NE), Shambu Singh said on April 25 in Dimapur that the talks with other Naga political groups will begin only after the ongoing talks with NSCN (IM) is over. He cited certain conditions of agreement with NSCN (IM) for the Government of India’s inability to hold simultaneous negotiations with other Naga groups. Irrespective of the conditions, what everyone knows is that people are tired of the endless talks and it is also known that no solution will be complete without including the rest of the Naga political groups. So what can be immediately surmised from the statement is the delay tactics adopted by the Centre on the Naga issue. The talks with NSCN (IM) has been going on for 16-17 years now without any resolve and at this rate one can picture the continuity of Naga talks for at least another 30 years if other groups such as GPRN/NSCN, NSCN (K) etc join the negotiation table one after the other. Holding simultaneous discussion by India with all Naga groups would significantly bring down the dialogue duration but India affirms to holding talks one by one unless the Naga groups come together as one. India insists on this because it knows very well that such genuine conglomeration is not easy on the part of the fragmented Naga groups. Three years back in 2011, under the able initiative of Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR), the Naga groups agreed to form “one Naga National Government” which resonated this year in the Lenten Agreement under the same platform.  If they have resolved thus and if the Government of India says it is open to hold dialogue with Nagas as one entity rather than one by one, what better reason and urgency does the situation provides for Naga political groups to practically come together under one umbrella and solve the prolonged Naga issue. Nagas cannot afford to allow negotiations to go on for 16-17 years with each Naga group like it is happening now with NSCN (IM) without any certainty as to how many more years it would take. Other groups have time and again mentioned that any solution arrived at with NSCN (IM) will not be acceptable to them and could create more bloodshed. Government of India is also aware of this. When the Indian representative said at Chumukedima that day that the Centre would hold talks with other groups only after finishing talks with NSCN (IM), the GPRN/NSCN leaders present remained helpless in expression indicating that it would have to wait for the present talks to get over but added that the issue would not be dragged on for long. GPRN/NSCN leader C. Singson went to the extent of describing it as a “mistake” the decision of the Centre to hold dialogue with NSCN (IM). He had said that the ongoing talks has become a stumbling block for other Naga groups. Whether any party accepts this statement or not, what is known is that final settlement can be arrived at only when all groups are invited to join the negotiation table. GPRN/NSCN has years back expressed its desire to hold talks with the Government of India which remains non-committal. What was agreed three years back on the formation of one Naga National Government in the Naga Concordant must be expedited to practical steps rather than simply reiterating. A High Level Commission comprising of the top leaders was also formed in 2011 with the purpose of expediting the process of forming the Naga National Government. The HLC was to be headed by either the Chairman/President or the General Secretary/Vice President of the Naga groups and having no less than four competent members in the ranks of Kilonser/Major General and above. It was agreed in the Naga Concordant that the HLC would hold meetings without any delay in the presence of FNR as facilitators. Interestingly, in March this year, same agreement to form Naga National Government was signed in the Lenten Agreement. It was like transferring old wine into a new bottle where Naga Concordant became the previous bottle and Lenten Agreement became the new bottle while the contents remained the same. The only difference was that in the Naga Concordant; the HLC was formed to expedite the process with FNR as a facilitator but in the Lenten Agreement; the FNR was entrusted to work out the modalities to expedite the process. It became only a form of reiteration. If an agreement can only be reiterated after three years in the form of another agreement, it is a discouragement to think of as to when visible practical steps could be taken towards such agreement. Knowing very well that they must come together whether like it or not, the Naga groups may well take the situation seriously rather than moving at a tortoise’s pace only to reiterate an agreement after a long period. Everyone is aware that Naga people are becoming restless and frustrated. But for now, FNR is the best platform available and it must be acknowledged. There also have been times when the participating Naga groups corner the FNR for its inadequacies. However, the FNR remains corrected but un-wavered.