On 24th May 1964, a ceasefire agreement was signed between the Federal Government of Nagaland and the Government of India. The ceasefire came into effect on 6th September 1964 with the Indian army suspending its operations and restricting its patrolling to areas within a thousand yards of its fixed posts; and the Naga army reciprocating by suspending attacks, sabotage and recruitment of soldiers; and were barred from moving under arms in the villages or within the defense areas of Indian army posts. The ceasefire was agreed upon to facilitate negotiations for a political settlement. The possibilities surrounding the signing of the ceasefire was strengthened due to the persuasion by a three-man Peace Commission which was established on the basis of a resolution passed during the 3rd Naga Baptist Convention at Wokha between 31st January and 2 February 1964 at Wokha. The Peace Commission comprised of BP Chaliha, the Chief Minister of Assam, JP Narayan, an active Gandhian and Michael Scott; and it officially began its work on 5th April 1964.
Just prior to the 1964 ceasefire, the state of Nagaland had been inaugurated on 1st December 1963, a consequence to the 16-Point Agreement which was signed between the Naga People’s Convention and the Indian Government in 1960. The creation of the state led to a belief within the Indian Government that the advent of Nagaland State would enable them to establish peace. However, Chaliha was himself skeptical of the political significance of “Nagaland Statehood” and believed that a lasting and effective settlement could be arrived at only with the Naga national movement.
The ceasefire in essence, therefore symbolized the existence of an absolute and intractable political disagreement that continued between the two entities. Subsequently, the interpretation of what the ceasefire represented was open to diverse understandings. According to Maxwell, the ceasefire for the Nagas represented a tacit first step to recognize that “Nagaland was a sovereign entity, and the political discussions, with that implied premise as starting point, could be expected to find ways, acceptable to both sides, for confirming and institutionalizing that relationship.” He further states that for the Indian Government the ceasefire was no more than an “opportunity for those who favored peace in Nagaland to persuade the Federal Nagas to the hopelessness of their cause, and of the positive benefits that would accrue from general acceptance of statehood.” Not surprisingly, till this day political lines are drawn between those that have accepted statehood as the only viable solution and those that perceive sovereignty as the basis for any future relations.
With both entities maintaining its position, the political negotiations reached a dead lock and with no signs of progress, the talks between the Federal Government of Nagaland and the Indian Government reached a political impasse. The Peace Commission intervened at different times in the capacity of a mediatory role to find and propose options to break out of the dead lock. After a series of six rounds of talks between the two entities, the political negotiations broke down, but the ceasefire continued. Subsequently, the Peace Commission dissolved with Narayan resigning first; Chaliha followed on health grounds; and in May 1966 Michael Scott was arrested and deported from India. All his papers, documents, recordings and other items were seized as a final gesture that violated the breach of understanding by which the Peace Commission had been operating.
In spite of the break-down in the process seeking for a political settlement, the ceasefire continued to hold despite increasing breaches. Finally, the Indian government unilaterally terminated the ceasefire on 1st September 1972 and further banned the Naga National Council. Simultaneously, the affairs of ‘Nagaland State’ were transferred from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Thereafter, bitter armed confrontation resumed. Since 1964, it has taken 33 years and loss of many lives to realize that the Indo-Naga political issue could not be solved through militarily means. The need to re-initiate a political process in search of a peaceful and just solution has since then been felt.
Till this day, 6th September has come to be recognized as Peace Day; a day that serves as a reminder the need for resoluteness in the search for peace. From experience it is learnt that it takes more than desire and commitment for the realization of peace. The process to peace requires a vision, the will and a yearning that embraces righteousness and compassion in recognition of a humanity that transcends feelings of narcissism.
Today in 2005, the Nagas are confronted with the same political issue in an entirely different global scenario where internal and external factors have undergone changes. The dynamics of international politics have completely changed with the end of the cold war and the advent of globalization and globalism. For instance the ASEAN project of free trade agreement and the opening up of the borders in South Asia with the building of international roads will increase trade across borders. Since the Nagas occupy a geo-political strategic location, it may somehow find itself being persuaded into paving ways with or without its consent. Furthermore, notions of state sovereignty and borders have been realigned in the light of globalism. Politics in India has changed as well with the introduction and success of multiparty systems. Coalition governments have strengthened the bargaining powers of states; in turn molding a perception of India as a super power.
The legacy and burdens of a common past weighs on the shoulders and the spirit of freedom and dignity flickers in the air. The Nagas are faced with a daunting challenge of reconciling their past with the present to make a better future possible. The search for peace cannot be sustained simply on the basis of trust. It needs to be based on reality; a reality that begins with people sitting together and calmly working out a solution for themselves in which they get to freely exercise their God given rights.
