Bharat Bhushan
Bangkok
CAUGHT IN a bind because of its commitment to resolve the Naga issue peacefully and yet faced with a stalemate in the peace talks, the negotiators of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) today posed some blunt questions to their Indian counterparts.
In the formal talks for ceasefire extension, Thuingaleng Muivah, general secretary of the NSCN (I-M), led a team of 14 negotiators to ask four basic questions to his Indian counterparts — minister of state for programme implementation Oscar Fernandes and former home secretary K. Padmanabhaiah.
The Nagas wanted to know: why should the ceasefire be extended if it does not serve any purpose? Why is the Indian government propping up groups trying to derail the peace process? Why has the government not come up with any response to their proposals for a settlement made as far back as 2001?
And, finally, what is New Delhi willing to commit to the Nagas and within what time frame? The questions reflected both the anger and frustration of the Nagas.
The answers to these questions, they said, will decide the fate of the ceasefire between the Naga outfit and the Indian security forces. The ceasefire agreement began in 1997 and has lasted eight and half years. It has been extended by one year at a time, except in last July when the period was shortened to six months at the insistence of the NSCN (I-M).
However, this has failed to produce the desired pressure on New Delhi to reach a settlement. The ceasefire comes to an end on Tuesday, January 31. Although nobody seriously expects the Nagas to revoke the ceasefire, the NSCN (I-M) leadership is under pressure to show results.
Muivah blames the Indian side for lack of progress saying, “The last six months have been willfully wasted. If the ceasefire is not serving the purpose at all, then it is common sense to conclude that one cannot go for ceasefire for the sake of ceasefire.”
Fernandes, who is also the leader of the group of ministers dealing with the NSCN (I-M), admitted that not much had been achieved. “Frankly speaking, not much progress could be made in the last six months. But we hope that in the coming period we would be able to break some new ground,” he said.
However, he pointed out, “You cannot deny though that barring a few incidents, peace and tranquility has been maintained, a basic requirement for any negotiated settlement.”
Agreeing with Fernandes, Muivah said, “A ceasefire agreement is for creating an atmosphere conducive to peace and therefore it must be taken seriously.” However, he felt that the ceasefire entailed obligations which ought to have been fulfilled by both sides — suggesting that New Delhi was not keeping its part of the bargain.
“There have been some untoward incidents in the last six months and people are not at all happy. We take these violations seriously and I believe so does the Indian side,” he said. He felt that the Naga issue was essentially a political one and required a political response to it from New Delhi or else it would become “a big issue.”
Padmanabhaiah, however, blamed the shortened ceasefire period for lack of progress. “The shortened six month period created many misapprehensions and misinterpretations of the prevailing situation. A lot of time was spent on attending to the issues that arose out of this,” he claimed.
Dismissing such an explanation, Muivah felt that perhaps it was the “weakness” of the Indian government that prevented it from either taking the peace process forward or dealing with those trying to disrupt it.
“Some groups are being set against us deliberately. They are encouraging them to be on the offensive. This is a deliberate policy to betray the peace process. We are not frightened by such attempts of the government of India. A day will come when it will have to face the consequences of this policy,” he warned.
(Courtesy The Telegraph)
