August. Independence days. A contrast of two distinct peoples yet each so enmeshed in a political history written in conflict with the other. Naga resistance organizations across the Naga homeland observed August 14, the “Naga independence day.” Once more, the Nagas reaffirmed their indisputable title over own land and human rights. ‘Urra Uvie.’ ‘This is our Land.’
India, a nation herself bred of a bloody struggle for self-determination observed her independence, August 15. A reaffirmation of the sacrifices her millions people made to exist as a free people; a reminder of a history written to exist in the legacy today her people take pride in.
The Nagas today exist in reluctant existence under this nation, India, herself bred of struggle to be free from the British. The more than half-a-century of struggle for self-determination has witnessed bloodshed, perhaps to validate in a harsh way the genuine rights of this indigenous people. The aspiration to be a free people continues to motivate the Nagas. But a solution also continues to elude the measure of aspirations the Nagas have in their hearts. The Government of India and the NSCN-IM had managed yet another phase of ceasefire, this time for an indefinite period. The significance is as much the extension as it is for the exigencies that first compelled the agreement arrived at Circuit House, Dimapur on July 31 between the two.
It may be observed that the latest ceasefire phase was agreed to be indefinite, is itself a telling ‘reprove’ to the GoI – the ball is in your court, prove your seriousness. And without further delay for the ‘continuance of the ceasefire.’ The joint statement signed by NSCN-IM and GOI representative carries a stark appendage – “…subject to progress in talks.” Observers hold that the ceasefire’s indefinite nature itself places the GoI under measured pressure to surface with something concrete and applicably significant to prove its oft-questioned sincerity.
While the Government of India seems to give out the impression that it is in a position where concessions could be negotiated, it is still burdened with the onerous task of translating the myriad dimensions that the demand for “sovereignty” has come to be appended with, lately. Considering the political exigencies that the decade of talks have come to form part of the entire dynamics, the general impression is, the demand for ‘sovereignty’ is different from ‘integration’ of all Naga-inhabited areas under a single administrative umbrella. Perhaps the GoI views ‘integration’ as a more secessionist endeavor while “sovereignty” is limited only to the ‘proper Nagaland state’ which can be “adjusted” within the confines of the Indian constitution. Whatever might be the case, impressions or observations, a long road stretches ahead.
A decade of ceasefire without any headway to resolving the tenacious Naga political issue, could have compelled a reinvention of the process from the hitherto ostensibly exploratory nature to a more proactive application of commitments the sides-in-agreement are tacitly expected to fulfill. Any deviation would only led to compounding the Indo-Naga political complexities to a more. This may be considered the reason the extension this time around is indefinite.
Considering a restive Naga people, impatient Naga groups and a confused Government of India with a tendency to bide time, if no acceptable result is exacted during the ceasefire periods, extensions will only serve the GoI to exploiting the advantage of delay, thus side-stepping major Naga issues to offer ‘concessions.’ The Government of India is evasive in translating politically its stated recognition as ‘unique’ the Nagas’ history/political life. Ambiguity from the GoI would also led to deepened frustration in the Naga camp.
Further, allegations and counter-charges over violation of ceasefire ground rules between the GoI and the Naga factions, or in the context of the Naga factions, have made good headlines over the last ten years. Imperative it is that these two concepts be defined and specified by implementation.
