“We cannot force anything on the states”
“The issue is about territorial and not development”
Yaronsho Ngalung
The above two statements were made by Mr. Oscar Fernandes, the Union Minister of State for Overseas Affairs and heads of the Group of Ministers (GoMs) in the Indo-Naga political talks. The Minister was right when he says that the Indo-Naga issue is of territorial and not of development. However, his statement that “We cannot force on the States” is hardly constitutional and plausible in terms of the Article 3 of the India Constitution. Article 3 never talks about forcing on or getting consensus from the states .Rather Article 3 only gives an opportunity to the concerned states for expressing their views on the Bill as the Parliament is the sole authority to implement on the said Article. It is a matter of great concern that the Indian State has not made their position clear on the issue of the integration of all Naga areas after Eight and a half years of intensive political discussions. The Minister knew to himself very well that the issue is of territorial integration of all Naga areas in the North eastern region. However, he is making a lot of excuses by saying peace cannot be brought overnight. But one must not be carried away by this sweet rhetoric of overnight. Everyone is well aware that the talks about the necessity of the integration of all Naga areas have been going on for more than Eight years.
Moreover, integration of the Naga areas is not a new issue. We are reminded of the agreement signed between AICC and the Naga Territorial Integration Council on 4th August 1972 this states that “Integration movement of the Nagas is not anti-India”. So, it is not about bringing peace overnight. Rather, it’s about the insincerity and non-committal attitude of the India State towards the issue. The Nagas in their 4th Naga People’s Consultation held on 20-21 January 2005 in its second point of the 4 points declarations unambiguously stated that, “Integration of all Naga areas is legitimate and therefore non-negotiable”. Therefore, we are made to understand that the Indian State is only playing a dangerous delaying tactics of suppressing the Naga national movement.
In 2003, A.B. Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister of India told the media that we need political consensus on the integration of all Naga areas. This only shows their disrespect towards the aspiration of not only the Nagas to live as one people but also to show their systematically trying to avoid the possibility of integrating the Naga areas by the Indian State through Article 3 of the India Constitution. The Indian State’ strategy to delay the peace process was also clearly seen in the last talks held on 16-17 December 2005 at Bangkok. At this crucial juncture, the Indian State opened up the closed chapter by proposing Article 244A/Sixth Schedule without territorial integration of the Naga areas to which the Nagas out rightly rejected there and then. The Indian representatives during the last talks seemed to have forgotten that the Sixth Schedule has been already rejected by the Nagas in 1950. The Indian State’s talks of their sincerity and seriousness are doubtful and hardly plausible if they are still proposing such autonomy provision. It is very clear that the talks are all about establishing a relationship between two nations and there is no question of the Nagas accepting autonomy at this point of time. We can analyze from the past eight years experience that the Indian State is far from coming to the their rhetoric of saying seriousness to resolve the Indo-Naga political issue. This clearly shows the double talks of the Indian State.
And, now, the Indian State is pressurizing the Nagas for extension of the ceasefire agreement. Whether or not the ceasefire agreement is going to be extended will be decided in the last week of this month before the ceasefire agreement expires on 31st January 2006. Whether or not extension of the ceasefire agreement is not the real question here. The real question here is on what basis the ceasefire agreement should be extended beyond 31st January. There is no doubt that all of us want peace as it was also stated by the Minister. But the question is not of peace alone.
The question is what kind of peace it would be. Peace without justice and truth is too heavy and dangerous a price to be paid. And the Nagas are not going to accept any imposed peace by the negotiating party. People want the ceasefire agreement to be extended in the sense that early political solution aspect by integrating the Naga areas as a first step is not neglected by the two parties. Without policy decision on the Indian side on the integration of all Naga areas would be a farce move for continuation of the ceasefire. As a matter of fact, simply keeping alive the ceasefire does not hold much water. What is needed at this hour is the continuation of the ceasefire agreement on a well-grounded basis or principle of political realism and action on the part of the negotiating parties.
This well-grounded basis or principle demands the Indian State of making its policy statement sufficiently clear to the peoples on the issue of integration of all Naga areas. It would be fruitless efforts on both the parties without such basis or principle founded on realistic political decision. Should it be fair all the time on the part of the Indian State to remain silent and non-committal on the political issue such as mentioned above? We have observed in the past years that the Indian State had not come out with any concrete political step for resolution of the political issue. It is the call of the hour that the Indian State takes a clear political stand and position on the issue without further delay to save the hard-earned ceasefire agreement. The non-committal attitude for so long had led us into believing of a dirty political game played out by the State. This is nothing less or more than just a mere counter-insurgency strategy of the State which was one of the State’s strategies in the past 50 years. However, politically speaking, it is to be understood by one and all that the Nagas as a people would be the last to succumb to such strategy.
In concluding my comment/opinion it is imperative to state that the onus of saving the peace process lies on the Indian State. For it had not shown any political maturity in the past eight years. If the same political attitude is going to be the sole approach of the Indian State, then, there is a need to rethink on the extension of the ceasefire agreement. Should we hope of a policy statement from the Indian side in the coming talks? The political scenario, if any indication, could well think of such a bold political step being taken by the Indian side if at all the peace process has to be saved. But it is a matter for the Indian State to decide.
However, if such a concrete step is not coming forth, then, the continuing the ceasefire agreement would be far from seeking the peace with justice and truth. In such case calling off the truce is one of the best political steps on the part of the Nagas. Because ending the ceasefire agreement does not mean ending the Naga national movement. Nevertheless, if the Indian side is coming forth with policy statement on the integration of all Naga areas as a first step towards resolving the Indo-Naga political question, then, the ceasefire should be extended for a time-bound period within which implementation could be done. That would lead the negotiating parties towards saving the peace talks. That would surely open up a way for democratization of the peace process through wide consultation across state governments, political parties, civil societies and citizens in the sub-continent.
On the part of the Nagas there had been Five times consultations held in Bangkok and India which have made the political peace process percolated down to the lowest level of the Naga society. If the same process is being reciprocated by the GoI too, then, we can be optimistic of resolving one of the world’s oldest conflicts. The question still remains to be answered. Is the GoI ready for an early political solution? For an analyst there are only two options that is, either peace with justice and truth or war by militarization of the Naga areas. Undeniably, whether we like it or not this is the only road ahead of us.
