If the process to finding peace is democratic, inclusive, participatory and reconciliatory in nature, then, there is a better possibility that the outcome itself will reflect these qualities.
The challenge of peacebuilding is to ensure that any solution is principled and just in order to attain an enduring peace in which the root causes have been addressed and the armed confrontations have ended. It is important to further assure that the resolution or outcome agreed to is not the source of future conflicts. In other words two components crucial towards achieving such a synthesis are: democratization and reconciliation. It is through the interplay of democratization and reconciliation that the process for resolving and systemically addressing conflicting issues is given meaning and relevance that makes it possible for a society to reconstruct and coexist with dignity.
In the history of Indo-Naga peace initiatives the breach of transparency and absence of democratic process has often undermined genuine intentions and subsequently resulted in the failure to find just and durable solutions. Lessons drawn from the Naga experience clearly show that the process of arriving at a resolution is equally as important as the final outcome. In other words, the outcome lies in the process itself which has the potential to engage the parties at a deep level. If the process to finding peace is democratic, inclusive, participatory and reconciliatory in nature, then, there is a better possibility that the outcome itself will reflect these qualities. This is the road less travelled.
On the other hand, the road most travelled in the history of peace initiatives has been in the form of pragmatic political expediency that is usually focused on reaching an outcome quickly. By using the approach that primarily focuses on an outcome, the conflicting parties seem to take the easier and less time consuming and messy route that by-passes the arduous task of engaging in complexities which are critical to building trust, addressing the root causes and establishing democratic peace. All too often this has proven to be counter-productive and unsustainable, and, in many cases, has been responsible for generating future conflicts. The end therefore cannot justify the means. The temptation of conveniently by-passing due democratic process and focusing on the outcome has been the weakest decision-point of many a peace process.
Against the backdrop of the present Naga political situation it is important to remind ourselves that the characteristics of democratization and reconciliation have continuously raised critical questions. The nature of durable political solutions require the active interplay of justice, transparency, accountability, democratic participation and reconciliatory politics which are part of having visionary statesmanship. And, therefore, those at the helm who are guiding the political process need to momentarily step back and engage in some sincere self-criticism.
An honest pathway to the future will inform us that an “enduring, inclusive and new relationship of peaceful co-existence,” and sharing of sovereign powers has meaning and relevance only through people-centered democratization and reconciliatory politics.
This highlights why it is in the interest of both Nagas and the Government of India for reconciliation to be given a chance to bloom and become the means for us all to pursue an inclusive and just future.
