Experiences around the world have clearly indicated that it is not sufficient, and often futile to completely leave the issues of just peace only to state and de facto governments. Perhaps the cold-war era is the best example in modern times, where peace agreements were signed with much pomp, but scarcely did these agreements ever translate to real sustainable just peace on the ground. The image that comes to mind is the Israeli-Palestinian process, where on more than one occasion you have the leaders entering into agreement, while simultaneously you have Palestinian children confronting Israeli armored vehicles with stones and petrol-bombs.
This lucid image strikes home the empirical truth that peace agreements between deeply divided nations are not adequate at all. It never has been and it never shall be, unless it also involves a deliberate and open process for the common people to participate by building right relationship with each other. For instance, unless the common Israeli and Palestinian are at peace with each other, it is unlikely any peace agreement will succeed. There is however no doubt that any formal peace negotiation involves the fundamental task for negotiators to engage with the core issues of conflict in a way that should create options which enables them to find sustainable and just solutions, while also developing a respectful framework of understanding for future relationship.
The paradigm of a peoples-to-peoples dialogue therefore is an essential process in addressing the burdens of history and in building dignified relations between divided nations. The underpinning implications of this paradigm defines the fact that the democratic character of any peace initiative cannot be ignored, after all, peace is about people and it is the people who must learn the art to respectfully live with one another. Further this paradigm suggests that state and de facto governments are not the only stake holders of peace and because they are so often entrenched into deeply polarized positions, it takes greater political will and courage to shift from their positions.
The peoples-to-peoples dialogue is a far more democratic process of redefining historical events from both sides of the perception, with the hope that a shared history with all its complexities may be established. In this light, the recent meeting between Naga and Assamese ‘civil society’ at Dimori Cove is an encouraging and positive step. In the last few decades much suspicion and mistrust was created around issues of state-boundary and with the recent killing of a Naga villager by the Assam police at Anaki C village, the acrimony has deepened. It is also only fair to say that bias reporting with cultural assumptions by the dominant media has only fueled prejudice and speculations.
The Dimori Cove meeting on June 9 therefore is quite a significant step towards beginning to engage with the core issues that have been responsible for the weakening of Assam-Naga relationship. The process quite naturally will have to be an ongoing dialogue, but what is momentous is the fact that the meeting established the interference of a ‘third force’ as the main factor responsible for the deteriorating relationship, while also affirming not to let ‘others’ solve the conflict in the region, but to do it through peoples to peoples initiatives. The commitment to prevent further misunderstanding and division and to restore amicable relationship between Assamese and Nagas is laudable.
These commitments of understanding however will need to translate into concrete actions so that there are steps being taken to actually affect positive change at the ground reality. The process therefore will need a praxis, that involves action and reflection; and perhaps the process of implementing some of the agreed shared points will be the most effective way of ensuring that the dialogue progresses further. If not, like many well intended initiatives in the past, it will only be reduced to a point of dialogue. It is pertinent here to suggest that such peoples-to-peoples dialogue is also initiated with other communities and peoples, after all Nagas cannot be an exclusive island, it needs to nurture the values of a shared humanity.
