FUNICH
Panelists for the Talk cum Discussion:
1. Mr. G.K. Pillai, Former Home Secretary GoI
2. Dr. Kumar Sanjay Singh, Ass Professor, DU
3. Ms. Binalakshmi Nepram, Gen. Secretary, Control Armed Foundation of India
4. Ms. Inshah Malik, Activist and Research Scholar
5. Mr. Gautam Navlakha, Consultant Editor, EPW, Writer & Activist and
6. Mr. Kekhrie Yhome, Asst. Professor, DU
Mr. Lakpachui Siro, Co-founder of FUNICH (Forum for Understanding the Naga-India conflict and Human Rights) introductory note:
This is the excerpt from the note “Today we are organizing this programme with a spirit that it will bring one step closer to conflict resolution, one step closer to peace and friendship amongst various conflicting parties in the sub-continent. It is also our hope that it will pave way for prosperity and peaceful coexistence base on fundamental principle of democracy, mutual respect and liberty. Let this message resonates in other parts of the country no matter how small it may be”.
Comprehensive Talks of the Panellists:
Mr. G.K Pillai, Former Home Secretary GoI
Settlement between India and Naga had no foundation. Earlier GoI efforts to bring peace through negotiation were also limited only with few groups of people. This mistake should not be repeated in the future settlement. Should there be a settlement from this current peace talk with the NSCN, GoI should made all out efforts to get the approval from all the stakeholders including civil societies such as Naga Hoho, Naga Students’ Bodies, various underground factions.
Indira Gandhi offered something to the Nagas during 1960s which no leaders could give now. It was the biggest mistake of Nagas not to accept that offer. Now it is a different time, no Prime Minister of India will say that I will initiate a Bill that will give independent to Nagas. This will require two third majority in both the houses which in current situation no party will have that number. Moreover, any PM who is willing to give away an inch of Indian Territory that party will not come back to power. Hence realistic approach from both the parties is the answer. Shared sovereignty is something both the parties can work out together, not exclusive with State and not exclusive with Centre. Often each side has idealist nationalist positions that are very high.
Kekhrie Yhome, Asst. Professor, University of Delhi, member NPMHR
The enthusiasm among the people when the talk started between government of India and NSCN is slowly disappearing. Meanwhile in this period of peace process many things are happening; process of differentiation, compulsive distortion of facts and history, branding underground activism as act of terrorism, under development, armed atrocities by the Indian security forces, advancement in utilization of natural resources, presence of institutionalized violence with militarization and loss of dignity, corporatization of North East vis-à-vis militarization. This gets manifested through large scale migration of Nagas and other NE youth in a city like Delhi despite of racism as it is at least better than their own native place.
One of the challenges for not able to move forward in finding the solution is the perception that you have for one another. You look at each other with colour glasses.
If this current peace talk breaks down the result will be not desirable and it will have its repercussion. A renewed armed struggle can spread across the North East Region. There is a possibility of strengthen relationship between the Naga rebel group and Maoist in central belt by supplying Guns and other supports necessary for guerrilla movement.
Inshah Malik, Activist from Kashmir, research scholar, awardees of Fox Fellowship at Yale University, USA.
After the most elated talk on ‘Indo-Naga Peace Process’. Here under are the main highlights. I must say I felt home with Naga people.
• Nagaland is not the problem, India is Nagaland’s problem
• The war in Nagaland is a war for India’s legitimacy
• State functions through colonial processes of narrative construction, militarism, coercion
• In a situation of war ‘peace talks’ are India’s way of buying time and enforcing death to Naga aspiration of self-determination
• If any talks can be successful in such a situation of operating power hierarchy, those have to be about resolving the political problem and not mere generation of peace while there is killing in the streets.
• Shared sovereignty is not possible as it is something thrown to them rather than both parties agreed upon
• War and peace talk can co-exist.
• Need to assess context in which this peace talk is constructed
• Legitimacy is the basis of the rule, can’t compare with the rest of the Indian, people feel that they are Indian but not in Kashmir and Nagaland and in certain other parts of India. What legitimacy does India has if for the last 60 years if people still say we want our sovereignty and right to self determination?
• For equal talk to happen war must stop, the controlled by either the Indian State or the Rebel must go away from the region to which you want to talk. In the presence scenario you are controlling the region and say lets have a talk.
Gautam Navlakha, People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Consultant Editor of Economic and Political Weekly.
The issue of Naga has to be look at beyond the issue of human rights violation of the Indian State.
Indian State that came into existence in 1947 define itself as a diverse and pluralistic India and in the process of the nation state movement they were incapable of accepting and understanding the needs to take a less muscular approach to issue where people challenge the Nation State Project and that is the crux of the problem. And that is one main factor why there are militancy problems and such approaches also vitiates the whole environment. Thus possibility of democratic resolution of conflict looks a distance dream.
Emphasize the possibility of peace talk and war existing at the same time, like in the case of Vietnam War. So there is no fix rule as such that you have to end violence before talk takes place. It rather depends on the situation. Also not every conflict that takes place in this country required the same kind of treatment. We have to distinguish between the struggle for Telangana or Jarkhan for separate state than what people are asking for in Naga Areas, in Manipur or in Kashmir and others. Therefore it is best that the state as well as the people at large recognize the nature of the conflict.
He expressed regret in the way the state responded to this kind of conflict. Government of India takes movement seriously only if they take up arms. Until and unless the movement take up arms the government does not take seriously at all. As non-violence movement or so called peaceful movement is easy for a strong State to take care and handle and they have succeeded in doing so.
Ms. Binalakshmi Nepram, Gen. Secretary Control Armed Foundation of India
Despite of several rounds of talks and for almost 17 years long where is the Indo-Naga peace talk heading.
On the cautionary notes she said “looking at some of the well know success story of accords like Chittagong Accord and Mizo Peace Accord where the former was hailed by UN as one of the most successful Peace Accord but the reality was far from wh at it was reported, Mizo accord was slightly better however when I look at the comments in the Mizo accord I found that 90% was picked up from constitution of India”.
There is an ongoing armed conflict in NE for more than 60 years. India is still in denial as reflected in their reply to UN Committee on UNSCR 1325 saying that there is no armed conflict.
For me as a Manipuri I do not feel wrong that the Naga Nation can develop in a most beautiful way. It is their rights, it is your rights. Stand by it. But it will take time, don’t give up yet.
It is high time for people who are part of Government to call a spade a spade. If you have a cancer, don’t call it a headache and don’t give us paracetamol tablet. That is what I told PM if there is armed conflict in NE accept it and address it. The first thing that GoI should do is apologize to the people of NE for armed atrocities, if there is no armed conflict then why there is AFSPA. In fact, Naga armed conflict is the longest running armed conflict in the entire South Asia. It is not India and Pakistan it is in our region.
She also questions the kind of political leaders representing from the region. Whether they are addressing the issue of armed conflict. Also the way education text book are constructed as we do not know about each other. We learn Jhansi Rani but you will not learn about Rani Gaidilu. Hence, we know leaders about each other as a result we are not able to celebrate the culture of each other.
Dr. Kumar Sanjay Singh, Associate Professor, University of Delhi
Accord is a very complex strategic move. If we don’t understand the complex strategic movements you lost the war even before you begin. One of the fundamental errors with politician of the people, not of the State, is they don’t analyze what the State will be doing. One of cardinal failures of peoples’ movement in India has been the singular failure in understanding the significance of various political issues.
Absent of violence is not absence of war. The best general is that who wins the war without violence. The art to prevent violence for as long as you can is the hallmark of a very successful general. That is why, to assume that negotiation is the absence of war is the first big mistake.
Thus when we talk of accord one is not talking about absence of war but a different kind of war. This is what one need to understand because guerrilla leader are very good in fighting with guns but when it comes to fighting with words and ideas that is where they are defeated. Biggest example is not Muivah but Michael Collins of the IRA, one of the best guerrilla fighters Ireland and Europe ever produce and he was killed by his own people. Because when he negotiated with the British he came out shock. This is the strategy one need to understand. What happen when you negotiate? What goes wrong when you negotiate? If you see Naga Talks I would like to draw your attention that Naga Talks is not the singularity. It has happen to accord across the world. Three things are found. Whenever you negotiate with the State and you always negotiate with the State not to the people, one must recognize negotiation is a part of Statecraft and if you don’t recognize then you come out with very mistaken conclusion and you start equating a Bihari rickshawala with Indian State and nothing can be more folly than that. Whenever you negotiate you lose both the Haven and Earth.
The second thing that happens in negotiation is that the organization that negotiates always splits. Tell me one organization that has not split after entering in the process of negotiation. The third thing, whenever you negotiate you will find that very rapidly the term of the discourse changes from rights to community. Because the entrance of the community brings the ideas of the community suddenly overshadowing the idea of Nation and people. It has happen time and again. How Irish peoples’ movement split between protestant and the catholic, how entire movement in NE split between Naga, Meitei, South Naga, North Naga etc. Final thing, every act of negotiation when it culminates, it always become more backward than the first one.
Lets take the example of Naga movement as this the movement has negotiated the most to the government of India. Now, what has happen to the negotiation? They have got less than what they got in the previous negotiations. If you don’t understand the pattern, how GoI is responding and you negotiate with them than you lose. Why does this happen? Every accord is embedded in the historic state formation. Nevertheless, Indian State is going through a very interesting phase whereby the state is in the process of very active centralization. Can this be a good or bad development for the Nagas and their whole struggle for their right to self determination?
