An important debate doing the rounds of local newspaper columns and public discourse is to do with the recently floated idea of a common Naga platform mooted by the DAN government’s Political Affairs Committee (PAC). A convenor has been selected along with a Member-Secretary. There is also report that the post of a co-convenor has been offered to the Eastern Naga People’s Organization (ENPO). The first point of debate is whether we need a common platform at this juncture. The second point of debate is whether appointment or selection (to provide leadership) to such important forums can be made on the basis of political and social affiliation or should it be on the basis of merit, credibility and wide acceptability. The second point of debate is beyond the purview of this article and therefore would not like to comment on it.
But coming to the first point—while there is every reason to suggest that having such a common platform itself is not a bad idea at all, there needs to be better clarity on the nature and objective thereof. And because of certain unanswered question/s, lack of lucidity or even definite goals, it seems that some doubts and even opposition has arisen over what is otherwise a positive and welcome initiative. For instance if the sole objective of such a common platform is bringing peace and reconciliation among the Naga underground groups, then the question arises as to whether we need such a platform at this juncture especially when the Forum for Naga reconciliation (FNR) is already engaged in the job of bringing about reconciliation of the warring Naga political groups. This task is best left to the FNR to pursue to its logical conclusion. There is every justification to the current argument that we do not need so many committees or forums to address a single issue. Some of the Naga political (underground) groups have already suggested very wisely not disturbing the work being done by the FNR and it makes sense to allow the latter to continue its efforts. And it is not that the FNR is not doing its job.
In fact FNR has already done substantial work on this front. The forum under the leadership of Rev Dr Wati Aier has gone about quietly doing its job. The impact of their work is there for all to see and experience—the sharp decline in factional killings and restoring a sense of restrain and calm. Most of us will know that this was not the case about 16 to 18 months back when the State of Nagaland witnessed some of the bloodiest killings and peace was at its lowest ebb. Is it not a fact that there is a semblance of order and restrain? The FNR had to virtually work its way up from the ashes of despair and acrimony. As an independent observer working in the media, one has witnessed the evolution of not only the FNR but also the process of healing and reconciliation taking place since the 10-point ‘covenant of common hope’ was signed in the early rounds of the Chiangmai peace summit in the mid-summer of 2008. From a law enforcing perspective as well, if we are to recall some of the tumultuous events, the work done by the FNR has gone largely unacknowledged although the results it produced in bringing down violence and killings would amaze most of us. I was even told that during one of the security level meetings with India’s Prime Minister, a top police official from Nagaland credited the work of the FNR in controlling and helping bring down the level of factional killings. Indeed comparative peace has been achieved over the last more than one year. And I am sure the State government of Nagaland and the Chief Minister himself will acknowledge this fact.
But one will also agree that much more needs to be done to strengthen the process of reconciliation and to make it truly inclusive. If the FNR has failed to live up to expectation of some section, as alleged in newspaper reports, then it also needs to reflect and introspect where it is going wrong. However, the FNR should be given the space to continue its work, which to me; it has so far done with honesty and integrity. It will be only fair to give time to this initiative, which indeed represents the voice and aspiration of the Naga people—for complete cessation of all hostilities and bringing about peace and reconciliation. As mentioned, if there are those who feel that they have been left out, maybe the FNR needs to clarify and let the Naga people know. But I doubt that the FNR will deliberately keep out any group or parties. We must understand that any mediation effort will have to take into consideration the nature of conflict, involvement of armed groups and many other calculations and complications. Let us understand that it is by no means easy to unravel all these in one go. If the mediator, here the FNR, was genuinely concerned that the nature of conflict between the two NSCNs deserved prior attention, then one would have to respect their judgement and wait for the best outcome. It goes without saying that Nagas will have to look at reconciliation, especially of our divided body politic, as a step by step approach. We need to let good sense and patience prevail at this crucial period.
And therefore, it will be in everyone’s interest to allow the FNR to continue working independently so as to exercise a measure of control over the process, which is extremely important. Besides, there has to be continuity. Having another common platform (for reconciliation) could lead to a chaotic process or worst. We must realize that this is not a simple or ready to do job. No one is saying that the FNR is perfect. But do we have a serious alternative? I would like to know the answer to this question. We should not forget that the past efforts of the Naga civil society and churches did not lead to any breakthrough for reasons known to many of us. Our past experience of dealing with the Naga factions tells us that having their trust and their consent to act as a mediator is going to be vital. Up till now the FNR has been able to get this mandate, which itself is an important breakthrough in the reconciliation process. I have no doubt in my mind that the Naga political (underground) groups which are actively engaged in this phase of reconciliation have come to respect the impartially and professional approach taken by the FNR. And if those who are to be reconciled (here the Naga groups) want the present initiative of the FNR to continue and also if the latter is able to secure the former’s compliance and cooperation, then why disturb the hard earned process? Do not forget that the work of the FNR has been publicly acknowledged by an overwhelming majority of Naga political groups, Naga Hoho, other frontal tribal Hohos, Churches, GBs & DBs, Civil Societies and the political parties including the ruling NPF and Opposition Nagaland Congress. The FNR is very much broad-based and represents the entire coalition of Naga civil society.
Having said all of this, people also expect our political parties to seek common ground on the Naga political issue. Nagaland chief minister Neiphiu Rio is on record calling for a collective voice to take the Naga peace process forward. In this regard, he has urged both the treasury and Opposition benches to keep the Naga political issue above petty politics. Rio is absolutely right and this is a good opportunity for the stalled Joint Legislature Forum to take-off. Both the ruling Nagaland Peoples Front and Opposition Congress have publicly spoken in support of this, which was affirmed by the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition on the floor of the house during the recent Budget session of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA). Their words must now be out into action. The Joint Legislature Forum mooted during the last NLA should be activated at the earliest. A common platform inclusive of only the ruling political party will be meaningless. Once the Joint Legislative Forum becomes a reality, it can become a part of the larger Naga common platform. The Naga Hoho, ENPO, NSF, NPMHR, NMA, FNR etc would be the other components.
At the end of the day the question of having a common platform is not being challenged. The real issue is making sure that a truly common Naga platform becomes a reality—one that is inclusive and has a nation building agenda. And one immediate suggestion that comes to mind is to tackle the issue of ‘extortion’ or illegal taxation and also to study and help streamline taxation imposed by the Naga national groups. Other problems confronting the Nagas should also be taken up under this common platform such as peace process, sovereignty & political system for Nagas, legal system & customary laws, development vision for the Nagas, mapping of land-natural resource besides tackling gun violence, crimes against women, land & boundary disputes and a whole lot of other things. Similarly the FNR, which is very much a part of the common platform, should focus on reconciliation while the task of this larger platform will include taking up the wide range of agenda before the Naga people. And yes, let’s keep politics out of the reconciliation process.
(The above article is purely a personal analysis of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinion of this newspaper)
.jpg)
