Those who said YES had this to say:
• Yes, because: 1. Government of India is not mature to solve any political problem, and does not have clear socio-political vision. 2. India is yet to learn lot of lessons to rectify its own myopic policy and system of governance. 3. Government of India is yet to recover from the colonial hangover.
• Third party intervention is required to break the impasse. Unless there is third party, India and NSCN will not be serious about talks. Pressure must be put on both sides so that honourable solution is signed to end the Indo-Naga issue.
• Yes, only third party can pressurise India to respect Naga sovereignty.
• Yes, involvement of third party will help Nagas in finding out who is right and who is wrong. Third party will be able to neutrally declare if NSCN-IM, NSCN-K or NNC is right or wrong.
• Third party will be good for the peace process. India and NSCN will not be able to do as they like. They will both have to respect ground rules and negotiation will be transparent.
• We won’t be cheated again. We should learn from the past that India is not trustworthy. With the UN observing the process, the Nagas will have more space to breath.
• Accommodating a third party in itself is an expression of the will and the courage of the parties involved in a conflict to find solution. Secondly, the same approach will enhance a more objective analysis of the issue/s: Indo-Naga conflict. However, whether India is ready to find a solution to this protracted political is doubtful.
S.A.M., North Carolina
• Yes, third party intervention will definitely help in strengthening the peace talks and finding a solution. Indian government is not serious with Nagas, but with third party, they will be forced to take Nagas more seriously.
• A third neutral party would be good, so that things are done in a proper manner and that there will be transparency and most important of all – that we don’t end up being taken for a ride.
• India is insensitive and would continue to maintain status quo till the Naga patriots wear out.
• Yes, to avoid the snake tongue of India
• There is need for a more objective viewpoint. Basically, it would help if the Third Party did not have too much stakes either with India or Nagaland in order to keep a more distant, rational point of view.
Those who said NO had this to say:
• Third party intervention will never help in Indo-Naga issue. Firstly, India would never reconcile to the very idea. Secondly, a third party will find difficult in understanding fully the complexity of Naga issue.
• Involving third parties is not a good idea as there will surely be partiality, being biased, etc. Political problems will best be solved by the people involved in the conflict.
Those who said MAYBE had this to say:
• With third party intervention, a political solution may be found. For more than 50 years a solution hasn’t been found, so the third party intervention should help in finding a solution.
