From Senapati, Manipur
It was on 14th August 1947 that the Nagas under Naga National Council (NNC) declared independence from the British colonial rule. On the following day, the British handed its empire in the Indian sub-continent that included Naga Hills to the Indian National Congress and Muslim League. So began the long protracted bush war between the Nagas and the state of India for dominance over Naga Hills. Since mid-1950s, the conflict has been violent. The conflict ranks as one of the most persistent and least known struggles of indigenous people today.The Nagas numbering little over 4 millions claims a traditional territory of some 40,000 square miles, straddling the official boundary of India and Myanmar, from just south of the Chinese border. Following British handing of the British Empire in India sub-continent and Burma in the late 1940s, Naga territory was divided between the two new states, without Nagas' consent, and ignoring the Nagas' own declaration of independence. Most of the Naga inhabited territory fall within India's official boundary in its north eastern part of the territory.
For more than 60 years, politicians of India's ruling coalition Government have been looking for peaceful solution of the Naga problem simmering since the mid 2nd half of the last century. Twice, the Naga rebels and Government of India have entered into ceasefire. There have been more than 60 fruitless rounds of talks between the Government of India and Naga rebels led by Isaac Chisi Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah popularly known as Government of People's Republic of Nagalim (GPRN) or NSCN-IM.
The talks were held in different parts of the world-Paris, Tokyo, Manila, Hague, New Delhi, Dimapur, etc. Indian Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers down the line since India's Independence had visited Naga Hills in search of peace with economic package, promises of rehabilitation, peaceful resolution of the problem but nothing tangible results seems to be coming out of the promises. Indian leaders starting from Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Deve Gowda, Atal Behari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and so on talk about peace in Naga Hills.
The Indo-Naga political talk popularly known as "peace talk" have been given huge publicity in New Delhi and in the Naga inhabited areas in north eastern India especially after the 2nd Cease Fire Agreement signed on August 1st, 1997 (1st Cease fire signed on 24th May 1964 - It came into effect in September 1964 - It was abrogated in 1965). The Indian official and Naga civil societies seemed to have been excited too in the initial stage. However due to huge publicity the talk generated, there caused alarm in some corner of north eastern states particularly in Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh that has large chunks of Naga pockets which is more than double the size of Nagaland state. After relentless search, the Indian Government seems to have abandoned the idea.
After all the euphoria, the question now is, what were the Indian politicians looking for? Were the Indian looking for peace solution or pretending to look for? Now obsession with peace having gone and dissipated, it is perhaps appropriate time to recall and decipher what this peace search was all about.
Observing all these it seems that there has not been any consensus as how to strategically approach the option of a 'political solution'. One can clearly see that these complexities have revolved around some main issues. They are uniqueness of Naga history, the context in which the solution lays; the necessity or unnecessariness of a political solution, the path to a political solution; the extent of power that a political solution should grant to the Nagas; and India's changing face and dual approaches.
Extend of power to the political solution
The political struggle that began in the early part of the 20th century in Naga Hills, a "political solution" has not always been a track and an agenda item that Government of India has explored. There has not been any consensus as how to strategically approach the option of a 'political solution. Moreover, Indo-Naga political talk popularly known as peace talk has never been tabled or an agenda item in the Indian Parliament. Quite a few political parties as well as ideological groups in India particularly in the north eastern states that has large chunk of Nag a population seems oppose to 'political solution'. They appear to argue that political solution would not be possible with the Naga inhabited areas metamorphosing into "Nagalim".
Some of the Naga ideological group seem to soften down and seems to dwell on the idea-pleading for a "federal solution". NSCN-IM seems to tow on this line. What then this "federal solution" is all about? It simply implies that there would be two Constitutions-Indian Constitutions and another for the Nagas as the charter of items for discussion from the Indian as well as the Nagas has not been opened even for public debate not to forget about tabling in the negotiating table and Indian Parliament sessions. One could haphazard 'two systems and little more than one Government' with some undefined options.
It would perhaps be worth comparing not to Hong Kong of China but Hong Kong of Britain. Else what is this 'federal relationship? And how far could the Government of India extend the political power to the Nagas? Coupled with these the Indian political leadership seem to have been at a lost 'as' and 'how' to begin the talk or 'pretending to'? The Nagas on their part seems wanting to begin the talk by hammering on the unwilling Indian political leaders about the "Uniqueness of Naga History" who seems least bother to know or try to know, that the Nagas have "unique history" and that the Government of India must recognized and respect it.
The necessity or unnecessariness of a political solution
On the necessity of a political solution, there have been sharply divergent perspectives. There are two polar view points. At the far end are the battle hardened Naga nationalists and at the other end the Indian nationalists. It would be perhaps worth noting that a 'political solution' has not always been a track that the Indian government explores ever since India abandoned the relatively peaceful modus vivendi in Naga Hills in 1950s. The Nagas now, at the negotiating table are led by NSCN-IM after entering into a "Cease Fire" with the Government of India (GoI) on 1st August, 1997. There are also other Naga groups like NSCN-K that has interred into Cease Fire but no negotiation, and others like NNCs, etc.
In the 1950s the NNC then rejected the existence and validity of even moderate Naga leaders, the Naga People Convention (NPC), branding them as opportunist for negotiating for a separate state-Nagaland with the Indian Congress leaders. They did not recognize the existence of Nagaland state. Of late the NSCN-IM seems to fall on this line as they do not acknowledge the existence of Nagaland state under Indian Union. To them it is Nagalim which encompasses all the Naga inhabited areas either in India or Myanmar. On the other hand the NSCN-K now popularly called NSCN/GPRN to distinguish themselves from the other group seems to have reconciled with the existence of the state-Nagaland. They have not spell out the areas for the sovereign Nagaland.
However at time it seems the NSCN-K talk about the solution only which might most probably be the present Nagaland state. For at time they serve quit notices to Tangkhuls Nagas from Nagaland state who are pre-dominantly from Ukhrul district of Manipur state-another Indian state, and selective killings were perpetrated on tribal lines hailing from states other than Nagaland and opposed Naga students coming from Manipur to write HSLC examination in Nagaland under Nagaland state board. This definitely is an indication of an acceptance of the existence of Nagai and state for a few Naga tribes.
Meanwhile the Naga civil society seems to advocate a political solution with the Indian Government through NSCN-IM. There have been consultative meetings and interactions with all the Naga tribes' Hohos, students' bodies, women bodies, intellectuals, prayers and fasting with Church leaders and Naga Chiefs giving mandate to the NSCN-IM for the peaceful negotiation of the Naga political problem. At the far end, numbers of bodies of various Naga tribes' organization endorsing the peace process between the Government of People's Republic of Nagalim (GPRN) and Government of India (GoI) seems to be increasing. However NSCN-K brands these organizations such as Naga Students' Federation (NSF), Naga Hoho, Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR), Naga Women as pro- to NSCN-IM and even christened as mouth piece of NSCN-IM. But there seems to be a general yet unspoken consensus among majority Naga populace and all the civil societies for a peaceful resolution between Indian Government and NSCN-IM.
It however posits that there's deep mistrust amongst NSCNs. This has led among political observers of the Naga issue to belief that some strategists in New Delhi are working overtime for intensifying the tuff-wars so that the" present war between the NSCNs should at least weakened the argumative power in the negotiation or even changed the leadership so that lesser Naga leaders might agree to winding up the Naga cause. Thus, some in New Delhi seem to believe that a political solution and peace is possible with the Nagas only in the post NSCN-IM scenario. A gentler version of the same approach is that a solution and peace might be possible with post Issac and Muivah. To the Indian, the Nagas' struggle is secessionist.
The problem in Naga Hills is law and order. The final solution thus is rehabilitation and employment. However, time has proved that the Naga rebels are not chocolate happy boys. Many rebels in north east India belonging to various ethnic groups have come over ground for rehabilitation but the Nagas continues to stick to their guns. Luring away from guns seems to be a Herculean task for the Indian politicians. It thus appears that a political solution has not always been a track that the Indian Government has always explored ever since the arm struggle began in 1950's. The Indian government seems to be uncomfortable to go back to history not even beyond 1947 or colonial period lest the Naga struggle beyond 1947 will lie bare the Naga history- i.e the Naga struggle against the British occupation and India's struggle for freedom from the British.
Thus the constraint surrounding the complexity to resolve the problem is the recognition of the uniqueness of Nag a history. To the Nagas, their nation is older than that of the Indian nation state. They were never conquered by anyone except the British. Thus the Indian leaders must understand this history. The Indian leaders who look at the Naga problem as secessionist could not go beyond 1947 lest Nagas' perspective in looking at history be legitimized.
To the Indian leaders its one of those secessionists groups-rather mother of all secessionist groups and must be suppressed at all cost. With whom the political solution be worked out then? From the Indians or the Nagas sides, there are divergent positions on the issue. The NSCN-IM seem not too convince that any political solution that addresses what they see as political aspirations of the Nagas' nation would be possible with the present government in New Delhi. There is an identical perspective among much Indian political leadership with regard to the NSCN-IM's approach to the issue.
The problem now is, how the two could sit across the table for peaceful solution with the belligerent parties stuck to their own viewpoints? One could presume that without going to the root cause, the problem would persist. It would always be "back to square one" as it has been going on now.
Where does India's search for peace go in this messy state of affairs in Naga Hills? It has indeed figured many times. It's most recent manifestation was when the present government established emissary for talk, the NSCN faced with the prospect of starting from 'A' refused to come for talk.
What was the attractiveness for the Indian Government in the search for peace through different emissaries to begin again and again? Meeting the Naga leaders? Civil society? Nope. What then? It would be suggestible to introspect not only the Naga leaders' viewpoints but also the Indian leaders view points.
Why then this search for peace for years and years? An explanation which is sympathetic to the Indian Government may be that Prime Minister sincerely explored the possibility for final solution, but later succumbed to the pressure of his hard core Indian nationalist in the Parliament. The other explanation which attributed motives to PM, is that the leaders merely played the game of buying time until the Nagas completed their fight to the finished-factional war. In this second explanation, searching for peace was a ploy to please the international community. An explanation sympathetic to the Nagas is that the Indian leaders simply buying time until schism and division; and factionalism exterminate top leaders and end by itself.
Meanwhile, India's exceedingly difficult journey with the Naga national question "Peace" if we continue to use that expression had done something positive. It is the Indian political leaders that introduce the debate, the concept, even the word "Peace", the word alien to the Nagas not long ago. The idea of "Peace" was so alien to the Nagas' vocabulary at the time. But now it has become the buzz word for the present State government, civil society and not to forget the Indian Government.
Uniqueness of Naga history
On the question of uniqueness of Naga history, the Naga leaders from A. Phizo to Issac Chisi Swu have categorically rejected the Indian constitution. To them the Indian leaders must recognize unique Naga history. Whereas, to the Indian Government, Nagas are secessionist and misguided youth- looking for employment thus inviting them to come forward for rehabilitation. However Isaac boys seem to be different than those chocolate happy boys of other rebels' rehabilitees in the region. To the Indian, the 1st and final solution to the problem of secessionist is to rehabilitate. What is the problem that the boys should come forward and lead a better and good life? Interestingly people that represent this perspective have been influential Indian politicians.
Meanwhile hardcore Naga nationalist is represented by NSCN. The declared political solution to the NSCN-IM is sovereign state of all the Naga inhabited areas, the Nagalim. However there seems to be inclusive and exclusive in the ranks of NSCN/GPRN and NSCN Unification who seem to oppose to unification of all the Nagas. To them it seems solution first without spelling out the area and region which one can then presume definitely would mean Nagaland state. It appears that they have reconciled with the Indian administrative set up. However the NSCN-IM seems not to raise anything on tribal line and seems not giving recognition to any Indian administrative set up.
For that matter NSCN-IM banned Sumi Hoho and western Sumi Hoho of which the supemo is Isaac who himself is a Sumi Naga and have not address anything to the state but rather Naga issues. It appears to them that it is Nagalim and that is the "Uniqueness of Naga history". NSCN-IM seems to rely on the India's goodwill and understanding of Naga history for peaceful resolution of the Naga political problem. Will the Indian Government recognized the "Uniqueness of Naga History"? Till date it seems doubtful that the solution to the "Unrest in the Hills" might subside. Only time will tell?
India's dual approach
Concerning military rule, it needs to be noted that though India proclaim to be the largest democracy in which the military is strictly under the civilian control, it has certain areas under military supremacy. Naga Hills is one of such areas. Years of protracted fighting seems to have changed the entire scenario whereby military supremacy was established. This process began slowly when India abandoned the relatively peaceful modus vivendi in Naga Hills in 1950s. The area now is a full-blown militarized zone with special powers to the arm forces. Unlike in other region the Indian army too takes active role in 'developmental programmes, like good Samaritan, external tours, etc. Defense establishment has thus step into the domain of governance, and this is a new development.
Of late the dispatch of some ex-military personnel for Chairmanship of the Cease Fire monitoring cell has created a furor on the side of the NSCN-IM. They accuse Government of India of not taking them into confidence and about their acceptability. But this has been sorted out quickly by replacing with a new person as Chairman of the monitoring cell that was aimed at reassuring the Naga rebels about the tardy approach of the peace talk. However it appears that the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government is under no pressure from its coalition partner and others to hurry up the Naga issue.
India has earned a good name in its role of peace keeping forces abroad, as part of UN troops, and for negotiated approach in Sri Lanka after military misadventures during Rajiv Gandhi in 1980s. However its approach for settlement at home in the Naga Hills continues to be military. Because of the operation of a number of Indian laws such as Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1858, the National Security Act, and the Terrorists and Disruptive (Preventive) Act, and Restricted Area Permit(RAP) which effectively closed off the region from the scrutiny of impartial, international observer the region continues to simmer under these laws. Even now the area is under restrictive policies that deny access to official international human rights observer.
On several occasions, Manmohan Singh emphasized that there could be no "military solution" to the conflict in Sri Lanka. At time it seems India is more interested in international issue particularly Sri Lanka than the problems at home. Is it because of M Karunanidhi's Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Government's pressure to Manmohan Singh's or rather Sonia Gandhi's UPA Government? Do the Prime Minister of India and President of the Congress emphasis peace only in foreign land and not in desi land? On several occasion Indian politicians emphasized that there could be no 'military solution' to the conflict and that the rights and economic development of the people should not get enmeshed in the ongoing hostilities against the Naga rebels. In spite of all these, the Indian Government could not even implement its Constitutional guaranteed of 13th point of the infamous "1960 Agreement" that led to the birth of Nagaland state.
Nagaland State legislators irrespective of political parties in power, unanimously approved and passed the 13th point in the state assemblies four times, for the implementation. With all these approaches and attitude, can there be peaceful solution to the Naga problem? Observers of the Indo-Naga peace talk note that India has not yet made serious effort to end the military rule in the region with the renewal of armed laws again and again. They did not fail to notice the way in which the Indian Government strategists has undergone a qualitative change in the context of the factional fights amongst the NSCNs. As reported certain Naga leaders were lure with money and arms. There are reports,(Nagaland Post, on its 22nd November 2008), in many sections that huge consignment of arm has been escorted by Meitei rebels to Nagaland from border town of Moreh in Manipur for a particular Naga group. Can this happen without the tacit support of the Indian strategist? Will the UPA government, keeping the exigencies of coalition politics in mind, has second thought about the menace?
From the trend observer can fathom that to the Indian Government, what is attractive and peaceful solution is the Nagas accepting Indian Constitution and power sharing in the state-Mizoram model at best. For this they rope in K Swaraj the architect of Mizoram Accord of 1986. But right from the start the passage has not been that smooth. One simple mistake was that the Indian political leaders generalize all the problems in north east. K Swaraj found out that the Nagas are miles apart from Mizos, and more so their problems.
It was then K Swaraj who unravels facts after facts and became vocal on the Government policies in handling the issue and perhaps that became beyond the comfort zone of some Indian strategists, immediately he was recalled unceremoniously. Then Indian Ministers touring Nagaland promises were the 13th point agreement, development, etc. without anything to offer except the Indian Constitution. Rather Indian Government reiterated the view that the Nagas leaders should be made to understand that everything could be accommodated within the Indian Constitution with economic package, and Chief Ministerialship included. Meanwhile India's political, bureaucratic, military and media establishments have never been convinced about the multi-ethnic, multi-communal, multi-racial nation.
Inspite of the presence of diversity, the majoritarian communal state was refusing to reform itself voluntarily and treating the problems of the ethnic minority only as law and order problem irrespective of the nature of problem. The only problem solved in the north eastern region is the Mizoram Accord of 1986. That continues to be India's problem-leaving aside others.
With the present factional clashes getting fiercer day by day and the imminent fight to the finish, inspite of the "reconciliation football matches" organize by Forum for Naga Reconciliation among the Naga political leaders and civil society at Chiangmai (Thailand), Kohima and on 13th November at Dimapur, has given a new relevance to the majority community that every inch of India handed over to Indian National Congress excluding those handed to Muslim League by the then Labour Party in Great Britain including that demarcated by the 1913-14 Simla Convention belongs to us, the Hindus. And when the political leadership in the country lacks the will for political solution in favour of military, the strategist can only categorically tell the world what the politicians still afraid to admit in public that this demand by ethnic minority is illegitimate and should be crushed by all means terming as internal problem by sealing with RAP to international community.
Many a time military strategists, politicians and others created controversy by pouring out their hearts that the Nagas should not put forward "unjust" demands and that India is Hindustan. Two issues may be highlighted in the ensuing controversy. The first is whether it is proper for Indian armies and bureaucrats to make political statement, a function which is usually reserved for civilian politicians. The second is about political incorrectness of the statement itself when one considers the fact that India is a secular multi-ethnic, racial and multi-religious country.
Naga leaders and civil societies have expressed their shock over those statements. According to them, only extreme Hindu nationalist or fundamentalist believes India belongs to the Hindus. There is another way of looking at this controversy statement. The people know that not because that one is not a Hindu, but because he is a Hindu. One knows that the traditional civil-military division of labour in the country has now been altered. It has been altered under the condition of the present communal violence in which one is embedded. The second is that India is both racial majoritarian and communal, a tendency which resurfaced quite strongly under conditions of the present situation.
Why then this big propaganda about peace in Naga Hills for years and decades? The search for peace is a ploy to please the world with its Look East policy at the doorstep and ready to push out Chinese goods and make it Indian market- keeping in mind to compete with Chinese economy in South East Asia? Or to show that its human rights are okay, economy in the upswing and to lobby with western world for permanent seat in UNSC? Is the country all for economy?
There are many policies questionable-How on earth can India the largest democracy on earth turn a blind eye for a military crack down right on its nose in Myanmar? Rather its tacit support to military junta, why? What about India's role in Nepal? Is not Indian Government hand in glove with the Royal Nepal Army against establishing peoples' rule? What about in Bhutan? Can a democratic country work hand in glove with monarchy and military junta that were against democracy? What about its role in Sri Lanka? Is not all this dual policies? It's a kind of weirdo. Was it because of its economic perspectives? Look East? Market? Can a policy like this be a role model for a new emerging democratic country? Is this India's search for peace?
[nagalim.co.uk ]
