Along Longkumer
Consulting Editor
The overwhelming verdict of the Naga public, cutting across every section of society, is to do away with the large scale extortion culture prevalent in our midst, especially since the Ceasefire became operative in 1997. And this public response is clearly evident ever since the Action Committee Against Unabated Taxation (ACAUT) under the aegis of the Dimapur based Naga Council took up this issue. Even the two main political parties in the State—the ruling Naga Peoples Front (NPF) and the Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee (NPCC)—both have come out in support of the people, which was only expected. Not surprisingly though, both have blamed each other for the current situation. The argument of the NPCC is that it is the prerogative of the State government to “protect its subject from any form of taxation other than those imposed by legitimate governments” and going on to describe the last 10 (years) of the NPF led DAN government as “chaotic”. The ruling NPF on the other hand has taken the stand that the ongoing ceasefire between the Government of India (GoI) and the underground groups does not have any “rehabilitation formula or any provision of sustenance for the national workers”. According to the NPF, “this has made the national workers resort to taxation in various forms and the people have been made to suffer by bearing the burden”. Indirectly putting the onus on Delhi, the NPF points out that the Congress led UPA has been at the helm of affairs for two consecutive terms and is going to complete ten years in power. The NPF does not seem to be aware that it too has been in power for more than ten years now and for the entire term of the UPA-I and II, it has been giving issue based support. It is therefore a little strange and perhaps unfair for the NPF to be suddenly talking about the so called ‘rehabilitation formula or provision for sustenance” to national workers. As facilitators for the last ten years, the NPF should have taken this up both with the GoI and the Naga political groups in ceasefire with Delhi.
Now the ceasefire in the context of the Naga peace process is not a unilateral imposition by any one party but it is a bilateral agreement, in this case between the GoI and the NSCN groups. It is not just for the GoI to answer but it is pertinent to know from the NSCN groups as to why a provision for ‘rehabilitation or sustenance’ was not included in the ceasefire agreement. We should remember that the Naga issue is a political one and not merely a case of law and order or the demand for some economic package or even Statehood. Talks are supposed to be without any pre-condition, at the highest level, between two separate entities and to be held in a third country. Nagas irrespective of factions are fighting for their historical and political rights. Perhaps that’s the reason why ‘rehabilitation’ or even a surrender policy was never an issue with any of the Naga political groups unlike some of the armed groups operating in the Northeast region who have entered into such things as ‘Tripartite MoU’, Suspension of Operations (SoO) and subsequently surrendering before the State government and GoI under the Rehabilitation Policy notified by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The point is this: The onus for any improvement or addition to the ceasefire agreement lies with the GoI and the respective Naga political groups. It is also for the NSCN groups to decide if they want some “rehabilitation formula or any provision of sustenance”. Let us not make this into a wrangling match between the ruling NPF and the Opposition Congress in Nagaland.
(Feedback can be send to consultingeditormex@gmail.com)
