Maintain the core spirit of dialogue

Witoubou Newmai

 

Maintain the spirit of dialogue


Witoubou Newmai

 

In each phase of the Naga peace process, new problems are raised. The potent capacity of the ‘powers that be,’ that appears to be latent, rears its elements of domination from time to time. This has also contributed to the relational hiatus of the parties involved in the talks on occasions.

 
Take for instance, the expression for the time frame to determine the dialogue process.

 
NSCN-IM Chairman Q Tuccu has termed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s expression on the need to conclude the Naga peace process within three months’ time as an “ultimatum to the Nagas.”

 
Given the prevailing atmosphere in the context of today’s India, Modi’s expression could be construed as a “take it or leave it” approach, and it can hardly be deemed an assurance.


If resorting to the ‘shove-down-throat’ approach is truly the case for the state, then it only imposes upon the spirit of dialogue, which has the potential to graduate to the relevance of decree; this in turn has potential to smother the spirit of dialogue.

 
22 years of table talks is a long period in any standard, no doubt. And given this scenario, there is every reason to be impatient by anyone. However, such frustration should be seen as a ground for the involving parties of the dialogue to get more closer to the table and engage intensely to hammer out hurdles, and not deviating from the intended purpose by projecting time frame more important than anything else. In short, the dialogue process should determine time, and not the other way round.

 
We need to acknowledge that laying grounds for a case of decree to be relevant also raises a situation to ask whether the right ambience has been missing in this 22 years period of dialogue. Such a situation also indicates that the dialogue seems to be taking place on one party’s domain. Or, whether the whole affair is under the state's proprietary? We may as well ask whether the prevailing situation also insinuates the state’s blandness with regard to the sentiment of the Nagas.

The case in point is that, both the Government of India and the Nagas must look back, to as far as to the spirit of 1997 when the Ceasefire was signed, in order to look forward. Both the parties have endured this much, and this far, and now this spirit of endurance should not be exorcised just to chase against the lapse of any time frame.

 
As much as the Government of India has endured through this 22 year-period, expressing to respect the peoplehood of the Nagas through various jargon including the "recognition of the unique history of the Nagas and situation", the Nagas have also endured through, thinking that such expressions of the Government of India are not mere placebos. We say this because, at least such expressions are what they seem to imply, and not the ‘method’.


With this, both the parties, the Nagas and the Government of India, who are supposed to be partners in ‘détente,’ must see that they have responsibilities, and that, their responsibilities are not abdicated. In other words, the ‘method,’ which challenges the spirit of dialogue, must be excluded from all future talks, so that for what the reason the Nagas and the Government of India have endured for, is achieved.