Can the NSCNs sidestep the quagmire of conflict? Yes.
But rapprochement will require a spirit of give and take, says the writer...
REMINISCENT OF the Post-Shillong Accord period of blame game within the NNC leadership, the ceasefire and subsequent peace process with New Delhi under the stewardship of the NSCN (IM) now entering a crucial phase, is turning out to be a time of political one up-man-ship back home with rival groups putting on a new found aggression to stalk every move of the NSCN (IM). The latter on its part finds itself atop the political centre stage clearly having to content on the negotiation process with Delhi almost having reached a saturation point and looking every bit exhausted of all its bargaining options.
Against the backdrop of this political stalemate and in a near perfect coincidence of sorts, two very senior and respected members of the NSCNs have spoken out on some key issues during the last forty-eight hours (widely reported in the May 8, Tuesday edition of The Morung Express) which I feel requires to be put in its proper perspective and to at least give a positive spin in an otherwise hopeless situation that we find ourselves in.
Foremost is the statement made by the Chairman of the NSCN (K), SS Khaplang who is reportedly not averse to unification as long as it is based on the principles of sovereignty. This was told by the NSCN (K) Chairman to Y Wangtin Naga, Deputy Kilonser, Ministry of Home Affairs in the NSCN (K) an upcoming Naga underground leader, who spent almost two months with Khaplang in Myanmar. The reported statement coming from Khaplang is politically very significant and I strongly feel that it provides a small opening that can be used to bring the two NSCNs closer together.
On the same day, The Morung Express carried the statement of the NSCN (IM) General Secretary Th. Muivah who was expressing solidarity with the Sikh people fighting for an independent Khalistan state. To recap, Muivah had said that self-determination was the most fundamental of all human rights and that all other human rights can be readily abused by an oppressive state when self-determination is denied. Muivah also spoke about ‘upholding freedom’ which can mean the same thing as sovereignty.
What one can make out from the statements of Khaplang and Muivah is that both are referring to the question of sovereignty but there appears to be a difference in ‘degree’ on the definition of the term. For the former it is made out that sovereignty be interpreted in its absolute sense while in the case of the latter it could well mean ‘limited’ or of interdependence but nevertheless sovereignty.
The NSCN (IM) proposal for a Special Federal Relationship between two separate entities i.e India on the one hand and the Nagas is no doubt a unique formulation. But for the other underground groups outside the talks table, it appears to be an issue of how far such a proposal impacts on the question of sovereignty and as such the outcry of another Shillong Accord repeating itself. Here, the NSCN (K) should also put forward its case of sovereignty—if it were to hold a dialogue with the Government of India—and on whether it is looking at a zero sum game formulation or a win-win outcome for both India and the Nagas.
Whatever is the interpretation of sovereignty that different groups or individuals may propound, I also strongly believe that at the end of the day it is more important to lay down a common political vision for the future of the Naga people. Bereft of this, political sovereignty in whatever form or manifestation will become utterly meaningless. This I would presume is also the wish and prayer of the people.
For the NSCN (IM) the problem obviously arises because it is now in talks with the Government of India. And when you are in negotiation there is always the question of give and take which becomes the basis for successful negotiation. For those who are outside the talks table, it will be very difficult to understand this point and therefore the criticisms are coming thick and fast on the proposals put forth by the current Naga negotiators with regard to the peace talks with the Government of India.
Leaving aside all these juxtapositions for now, I would once again presume that the mandate of the Naga public is for all underground groups to work together to resolve the political issue with India. And this is the important issue that requires proper attention of the National Groups, State Government and Civil Society Groups. Peace talks with the Government of India will take care of itself if Nagas speak in unison and through a common platform.
For this to be achieved, it may well require that a more broad-based single window peace process be reworked with Delhi. It will be significant to mention here that General Thenoselie, a former Army Chief of the FGN/NNC and regarded as a close confidante of NSCN (IM) General Secretary Th. Muivah had mooted the option of having a broad based ceasefire agreement with the Government of India by including all the factions in it.
In a news report carried earlier this year in The Morung Express, General Thenoselie had even suggested that the present ceasefire be scrapped and renewed on the lines of the 1964 ceasefire under the Indian Foreign Ministry. Speaking to this writer Gen Thenoselie had then said that it will be a ‘worthwhile attempt’ for the Naga people to deliberate on this option. He went to say that this was shared with Muivah during their meeting in Bangkok, the contours of a few options including the possibility of a broad based ceasefire on the lines of the 1964 arrangement. “In politics we should find the best alternatives”, Gen Thenoselie had then opined and even went as far as to suggest an ULFA type selected People’s Consultative Group in which the best Naga minds can converge and prepare the ground for a lasting and permanent political settlement of the long conflict.
The Naga civil society groups in their clamor for bringing peace and unity among the factions (though well intended) has overlooked one critical component in the process. They have not been successful in providing a basis or mechanism from where the Naga underground groups can practically work their way round. In the context of the NSCNs for instance, there has to be something which both groups can cling on in order to arrive at some understanding. There could be other points of reference but I also believe that the query raised by Khaplang can provide a ground for mutual accommodation. In this case, the question will therefore fall on the NSCN (IM) and all those supporting the current peace talks with the Government of India on whether to ‘withdraw their charter of demand’ as wanted by the NSCN (K) Chairman SS Khaplang.
The NSCN (K) on its part will also be called upon to reciprocate on other issues. If in case hypothetically speaking, the NSCN (IM) leadership was to accommodate the suggestion from Khaplang in the spirit of mutual benefit, the NSCN (K) should also be not averse to getting on board the peace talks on the principles already worked out with Delhi—talks at the highest i.e Prime Minister’s level, in a third country and without any condition. It is clear that for any rapprochement to take place a basis has to be found for the two NSCNs to work from and by inculcating the time honored tradition of give and take. If the NSCN leaders can bilaterally work on such a process, then the road to peace will be shorter than one can imagine.
(The above article is the personal opinion of the writer and does not in any way reflect the opinion and position of The Morung Express)
