All of us are well aware about the ceasefire involving the NSCN groups with the Government of India and the dialogue taking place for the last fifteen years or so between Delhi and the Isak and Muivah led NSCN. It is now quite clear that a solution, in whatever nature and form, is likely soon before the State of Nagaland goes for Assembly Election in March 2013. Now the question or perhaps the concern is what kind of process is going to evolve to reach a political settlement. This process could well determine the success or failure of the outcome i.e. the solution that everyone is talking about. In this regard it is apt to look at the recent suggestion put forth by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf while delivering the keynote address, “Uniting South Asia: The Way Forward” during the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit 2012. For someone who had been at the helm of affairs in Pakistan as President dealing with the issue of peace and war vis-à-vis India and not to forget his role in the Army as a top ranked General, Musharraf brings along with him the enriching experiences of leading a country—he has been there, seen it and done it. Seeking a new start to relations between India and Pakistan, Musharraf gives a matter of fact suggestion—India should be more accommodating. And reason? Because India was the bigger country. Musharraf goes on to suggest that concession should come from the bigger party and that “India should have a big heart because it is the bigger country”. He says that when the smaller party makes the compromise, it can have “negative connotations” and that the latter scenario could be misconstrued as the bigger party dominating the other. If we can relate this to the political dialogue between the Government of India and the NSCN (IM), India is the bigger power and should be more sympathetic. On the other hand when it comes to the Naga reconciliation process involving other Naga groups, the NSCN (IM) ought to be more accommodative as the bigger party. And so both the peace talks with Delhi and reconciliation among the Nagas can move forward if parties are willing to be accommodative.
The Pakistani former Army General and President also mentions about three essential pre-requisites towards resolving the Indo-Pak disputes. This column found these worthy of emulation in our own context of peace and reconciliation both with India and among the Nagas. One is what he called ‘sincere intention’. On the face of it, this looks simple and unsophisticated. Yet if we look deeper, this is a fundamental philosophy that we often take for granted. Whether in politics, society, administration etc, if more people are sincere and have good intention then the world will be a better place and we will have many more solutions to our problems. The second point mentioned is “downsizing the roles of bureaucrats and intelligence agencies, since they find it difficult to break from the past”. This is very important as this column has also been harping on the need to ensure that decisions to resolve issues should be taken by the political leadership and not by the military, intelligence people or the bureaucrats. The Indo-Naga political issue has sometimes veered towards becoming too much security centric to the point that the civilian political leadership has abrogated its role to the non-elected bureaucracy and military. The same is the case with India and Pakistan. As a result no breakthrough has been made possible. Therefore we come to the third pre-requisite to resolving issues—‘leadership function’ and the need for courage of conviction. Resolution or conflict, peace or war, they are all possible if leaders decide to do so.
