The visit of the Parliamentary Standing Committee in-charge of Home Affairs to Nagaland on February 3 to discuss major issues regarding internal security and development, including progress of the Naga peace process ought to have been an extremely important occasion that merits the serious attention of the government, the Opposition Congress party and civil society groups in the State. That the Standing Committee consists of politicians from all the major national political parties gives it the extra weight-age as far as its role in influencing policy decisions of the government is concerned. The presence of a political heavyweight like Sushma Swaraj leading the panel will likewise give greater legitimacy to the process underway.
With its emphasis to concentrate on long-term plans, policies and the philosophies guiding the working of the Executive, such Committees as the one which visited Kohima will be in a very privileged position to provide necessary direction, guidance and inputs for broad policy formulations. Given these facts, the present committee has the wherewithal to engage the government at the Centre on a high priority basis as far as the issues involved in the Naga peace process is concerned.
This is all the more desirable given the recent disclosure of divisions at the decision making set-up among the mandarins and agencies of the Indian Government which has seriously dented New Delhi’s commitment in resolving the issue. In particular, the insecure mindset of some of the Indian agencies particularly the Intelligence Bureau working under the Home Ministry and other hawks in the establishment is hardly tenable. It is all the more appalling to note the circumstances under which the present peace process is being dragged on its feet by those who have no mandate to decide on what should essentially be a political decision making process.
It is here that civil society groups may need to go beyond mere petitioning and get into a sustained engagement with decision makers who matter. As a committee that is essentially political in nature, such Standing Committee will be in the best position to address the Naga peace process from within by taking along with it the wide spectrum of political opinion. At the end of the day, a decision may not so much emanate from the talks table at Amsterdam or Bangkok but rather in Parliament. And it is because of this that civil society groups may have to step up some form of lobbying activity in the national capital.
Lack of clarity among the political parties and the absence of an all party consensus only weaken the basis of the process itself and with no clear-cut direction to follow, the peace wagon may well end up being disbanded midway. If at all New Delhi is serious and committed for a negotiated settlement, it is all the more urgent that the political leadership start taking control of the process itself and bring it to its logical conclusion, as was rightly mentioned by Sushma Swaraj. For this, such a Political Standing Committee, which has the mandate of Parliament should discuss threadbare the entire gamut of issues relating to the peace process and rally for a consensus appreciating the urgency for a peaceful negotiated settlement. The Committee should also put the mandarins of the Home Ministry in their right places so that the process towards a settlement is not hijacked by persons who remain outside of the political mandate.
