Split Over Unification

THE UNIFICATION OF Naga territories is the core issue that remains to be addressed in the ongoing peace process after the conclusion of talks in Bangkok between the Government of India interlocutor and the Naga separatist outfit, National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah). As the issue concerns other States, including Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, the Centre is understandably slow in dealing with the demand for a "Greater Nagaland" comprising all Naga-inhabited areas. After the violent protests in Manipur against the extension of the ceasefire with the NSCN (I-M) to the Naga-inhabited areas in the neighbouring States, the Centre seems to have realised the full implications of any commitment to the Naga separatists on this issue. Apparently, the effort at the Government level is to keep the peace process on and, at the same time, side-step the controversial points. As an interim arrangement that would not jeopardise the peace process, the Government is reportedly considering expanding the ambit of Article 371(A) that confers a special status on Nagaland in relation to religious practices, social customs and legal procedures of the Nagas. For the moment, this might appear the best course, but sooner or later, the peace process is bound to hit roadblocks.

Already, the general secretary of the NSCN (I-M), Thuingaleng Muivah, has described as "non-negotiable" the issue of unification of all "Naga territories". He even threatened to raise the demand for a referendum in the Naga-inhabited areas outside Nagaland to resolve the dispute over integration into a "Greater Nagaland" in the event of the Union Government being unable to forge a consensus on the issue. Quite expectedly, the Governments of Manipur and Assam, fearing loss of territory, have voiced their opposition to the idea of referendum. They have nothing to gain and something to lose from such a referendum. The Centre would, therefore, have to bring about some agreement among the North-East States before placing concrete proposals on the table for the NSCN (I-M). Caught in this North-East maze is the question of Naga identity. In the land of numerous tribes, notions of the ethnic identity of the Nagas are often loose, and the identity of some of the tribes claimed as Nagas by the NSCN (I-M) — for instance, the "Old Kukis" in Manipur — is subject to dispute. Ethnic identity is often mixed up with political affinities.

Whatever the difficulties, the task of finding a solution would not be made easier by circumventing the core issue. Further progress is unlikely to be achieved in the peace process without touching on the unification of all Naga territories, howsoever defined. As of now, the NSCN (I-M) appears fully committed to the peace process. However, the Government of India would have to seriously consider holding talks at the political level. The interlocutor, the former Union Home Secretary, K. Padmanabhaiah, did what was expected of him: the spade work. The Centre must now widen the scope of negotiations and bring in all the stakeholders, especially the State Governments that stand to lose territory in the event of the NSCN (I-M) gaining concessions. Indeed, the Naga leaders called for a political negotiator to continue the talks after Mr. Padmanabhaiah suggested that the separatists disarm themselves. Clearly, after having done more than his bit, there is little else the interlocutor can do. If the peace process is not to reach a dead-end, the Centre must build on the talks held so far and continue negotiations at the political level. There are differences and difficulties over the unification demand, but that is precisely the reason why the next round of negotiations must focus on this core issue.

Editorial column, the Hindu 31st May 2003.

HOME

NagaTalk 2003