The news of the ceasefire extension for six months comes as no surprise given the mood of the general public most of whom had expressed the desire that the truce with New Delhi be extended in order to allow both parties to bring to a logical conclusion the peace process which has been dragging quite endlessly for the last eight and a half years or so. But it has to be recognized that there was also an emerging opinion that the ceasefire should not be allowed to continue in a vacuum. To put it bluntly, such extensions are turning out to be of mere academic interest with nothing home to write about. This has been largely because of the non-transformative nature of the talks itself which refuses to transcend beyond the rhetoric of high sounding cliché. Much of the blame on the tardy progress of the talks would have to be put on New Delhi. As the status-quo power it would have to give a clear enough direction or even possibly a laid out road-map to end the very process itself by honestly negotiating with the Nagas to pave the way for a win-win outcome for both sides.
There is a basic lesson to be learned for negotiators of both the NSCN (IM) and Government of India from the 4 days of talk experience in Bangkok. The message is that the Indo-Naga peace process should not be reduced to a zero sum game formula. If both the parties had taken such an approach (which thankfully they did not) then the outcome would have been a costly one. Considering the fact that the NSCN (IM) wanted only a 3-month extension while New Delhi pushed for one year, much credit goes to the negotiators for walking halfway to arrive at the time frame of six months which proves that given the compulsions it is a win-win situation with neither side being made to win or lose. Any future negotiations would have to follow this rationale if at all a ‘negotiated’ bi-lateral settlement has to be arrived at.
Much debate will now center on the period (of six months time) of the ceasefire extension. There are obvious pros and cons in keeping the period short or for that matter giving it a longer lease of life. However, under the present circumstance the NSCN (IM) has done the right thing by keeping the pressure on the Indian side because the peace process has itself reached that stage requiring urgent political attention. By giving it a longer lease of life, there is every possibility that the urgency of the matter may be lost on New Delhi. While a 3-month extension would have been the best time-frame to keep Oscar Fernandes and his team on a wake-up a call, the mutually agreed six month extension should nevertheless keep New Delhi on its toes.
More than anything else the latest ceasefire extension would serve as a reminder to the Government of India that having traveled the peace road thus far, it is now high time that a political momentum is given to the process. Further, one of the basic premise, talks at the highest level requires the personal involvement of the Prime Minister who should appreciate the urgency for a peaceful negotiated settlement. It is time for the government to set the alarm bells ringing as the clock starts ticking to July 31.
