Where are the labours?
Moa Jamir
The recent initiative by ‘Parliamentary Working Committee of Nagaland Joint Legislative Forum on Naga Political Issue’ (PWC) to garner support for urgent solution to the protracted Naga political issue is laudable and makes sense as there is anticipation in many quarters that a Bill pertaining to the issue might be introduced in the ongoing budget session of the Indian Parliament.
Against the backdrop, in a joint statement, five Naga Political Groups (NPGs) have condemned the activities of the PWC questioning its wisdom and “blindly” propagating the August 3, 2015 Framework Agreement.
In its rejoinder, the PWC said that they’re not issuing a “blank cheque” to the ongoing negotiations and before signing an agreement, all important stakeholders would be consulted in the spirit of oneness and unity to strengthen the Naga political cause.
The present PWC was an outcome of a meeting held on May 25, 2015, where 60 legislators of the Twelfth Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) decided to constitute Nagaland Legislators’ Forum on Naga Political Issue as the “voice of the House to all sections, including the Government of India and the Naga nationalist groups.” Subsequently, the PWC was constituted consisting of representatives of all political parties, a successor to erstwhile Joint Parliamentary Committee on Naga Political Affairs formed in November 26, 2009 by a joint sitting of the NLA.
The basis for this was ‘The Covenant of Reconciliation, 2009’ and ‘The Naga Concordant’ signed on August 26, 2011 facilitated by the Forum for Naga Reconciliation whereby the top leadership of three NPGs resolved to “work towards unity and towards formation of one Naga nationalist organisation.”
The NSCN (IM) have also time and again appealed to other groups to “forget and forgive” and find common ground for a solution and its commitment that “we shall come back to the Naga people for consultation on all important matters when the time comes to decide the final political agreement with the GoI.” Nevertheless, for the sake of probity, any belligerent party will not make a direct overture.
In this context, if an opposition-less government was formed in Nagaland purportedly for “acting as a facilitator to the peace process,” so far their homework at home has been found appallingly wanting. As a facilitator of peace process, has the PWC ever brought the contending parties together to the negotiating table? The ‘art of diplomacy’ requires this tactful manoeuvring for any entity to be called a “facilitator to the peace process.”
Forget tactfulness, any steps towards Confidence Building Measures to bring other stakeholders to the negotiating table are missing. The sidelining of the FNR from the whole process is unfortunate. Devoid of such measures, the consultation process post signing of the Framework Agreement has been arbitrary, if one were to go by media reports on the same.
By virtue of being the elected legislature from the State, is the team unilaterally deriving its legitimacy and mandate as the representative of the “collective voice of the people” and astoundingly pedalling the agreement as a ‘leap of faith’?
Does it imply that once an ‘agreement’ is arrived at with the ‘largest’ and most influential NPG, backed by the existing State machinery, the longest ‘freedom’ movement in independent India will finally come to a logical conclusion?
If so, couple of possibilities are imaginable. First, the ‘final agreement’ would be so good a solution that instead of resisting, all stakeholders will lap it up without any qualms. Second, once an agreement is done, it will be imposed arbitrarily setting aside concerns from other quarters.
Either way, for the Indian Government it would be an ideal outcome. On one hand, it can pat itself for ushering a peace process many consider as the most pertinent. On the other hand, it can conveniently wash its hands off any eventualities that arise, justifying their position easily – That the Nagas are not capable of governing themselves, an old colonial adage ironically used by the British to justify their presence in pre-independent India.
Right after the announcement of the Framework Agreement, this column had commented on the anxieties over the ‘non-disclosure of specifics,’ asking whether it would accommodate the notion of political relationship founded on genuine federalism and the aspiration of competing imperatives amongst the various stakeholders or will history repeat itself.
On hindsight, the concerns seem legitimate, as the recent collective statement by five NPGs suggests. Therefore, the PWC, to justify its legitimacy, must up its ante and get its act together. Else it runs the risk of being called an ‘opportunist’ entity trying desperately to validate its relevance in face of an impending change. Conversely, despite an ‘Agreement,’ a permanent solution would still remain elusive.
For any comment, drop a line to moajamir@live.com
