Naga conflict: Restoration of trust is key to fruitful dialogue with NSCN (IM)

A compromise process to end the NSCN (IM) stalemate, which had been gaining ground, has hit the proverbial roadblock. Indeed, until the stalemate occurred, even the sceptics were of the view that a “beginning of the end” was in sight and a full-bodied resolution would soon see the light of day, especially with the signing of a framework agreement in 2015.

However, the cordiality that had characterised the atmospherics when the agreement was signed evaporated immediately later. Indeed, during the UPA regime, when RS Pandey was the interlocutor, a considerable level of trust and respect existed between the two sides. Extensive negotiations with guidance from the Centre ensured that there was agreement on almost 90 per cent of the issues.

The only two issues that remained to be ironed out were the degree of autonomy that was to be provided to the Naga-dominated hill districts of Manipur, and the way the Naga Council was to be set up to preserve the culture and heritage of the Naga people.

Also read: Karnataka no longer liberal, hijab issue has hijacked state’s reputation

The trust factor continued even with the change in regime in 2014 and the appointment of RN Ravi as the interlocutor. The framework agreement of 2015 was signed at the request of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN (IM)) since its chairman, Isaac Chisi Swu, a Sumi Naga, was on his death bed, and the outfit wanted his signature on the document. The agreement was primarily entered into to showcase that the NSCN (IM) was not just a Manipur-based group but an all-inclusive one.

Factors that eroded the trust

Two developments thereafter created misunderstandings and eroded the trust that had been carefully built over years of negotiations. One was the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. This led the NSCN (IM) to feel that any understanding, even if it came by way of a constitutional amendment, had no real meaning if New Delhi could unilaterally alter it at a later date.

The second was the appointment of Ravi as the Governor of Nagaland. Indeed, Ravi’s comments as Governor utterly undermined his position as the interlocutor. Cracks, therefore, began to appear and the talks came to a grinding halt when Ravi termed NSCN (IM)’s activities as “extortion by armed gangs”.

Also read: Manipur polls: BJP edgy but Congress in disarray

It is important at this point to take stock and comprehend that spoiling efforts would be in plenty when a conflict ends and dialogue begins. An interlocutor has to act in a manner that comes across as neutral observation, and function as a bridge between the two warring parties that have come to the negotiating table. A constitutional authority can never fulfil such an obligation.

Ouster of Ravi

Finally, the dialogue process broke down with the NSCN (IM) stating that Ravi exhibited “undesirable and dominant traits” and was not only “arrogant” but was also a “bigoted advocate” who did not restrain from abusing the historical and political rights of the Nagas. Ravi was finally replaced and the NSCN (IM) won the day.

Indeed, Ravi’s “ouster,” ignominious as it was, heralded an altogether different set of rules of engagement between the two parties, one which willy-nilly forced New Delhi to go on the defensive. The conventions that would determine Indo-Naga dialogue hitherto would be very different with much of the advantage going the NSCN (IM) way.

The atmospherics that have marked the insurgency situation in Manipur and Nagaland in recent months — with the possible entry of inimical powers who could be chaperoning belligerent groups in their anti-India agenda, too — have become favourable for the NSCN (IM). New Delhi and its agencies in the North East, at present, have their hands full trying to douse fires of inadvertence as also to regain lost ground by way of goodwill.

Fresh beginnings

In any event, a fresh beginning has been made with the appointment of a new interlocutor. While it is expected that the dialogue process hereafter will progress in cordiality, the NSCN (IM) must comprehend that New Delhi would never countenance demands such as a separate flag, a separate constitution, and the ‘Nagalim’, a sovereign state that seeks to incorporate the Naga-dominated areas of other States in the North-East.

A grant of autonomy, which was on the cards during the earlier dispensation, can still be a possible way out. But much of the pitch has been queered during the course of the past year.

At any rate, Muivah continues to be adamant about the Naga-dominated areas of Manipur. After all, it is his homeland and that of his primary parish, the Tangkhuls. But neither New Delhi nor Imphal would ever countenance a balkanisation exercise. Nor has a comprehensive autonomy plan been charted out whereby the hills of Manipur would lend themselves to the consent of both the NSCN (IM) and Imphal. The situation, therefore, presents itself as a debilitating stalemate.

It must be understood that the key to a successful negotiation is trust, respect and sincerity between those engaged in the process. Unfortunately, as aforesaid, some of the goodwill was lost, especially after the signing of the framework agreement and the appointment of Ravi as the Governor of Nagaland.

Building bridges

Therefore, the way forward would perforce involve the rebuilding of confidence and trust with the Naga leadership. It would also need to focus on bridging the chasms and ironing out the two thrust areas as indicated above, on which there was no finality during the earlier negotiations. Moreover, there has to be complete transparency with Manipur as also Nagaland. The civil societies of both the States, too, have to be taken into confidence.

The process, unfortunately, cannot be hastened. But patience marked by goodwill and trust — if it were to shape the dialogue process — would end what has come to be termed as the mother of all insurgencies in the North-East.

(GK Pillai is a member of the IAS of the 1972 batch and a former Union Home Secretary of India. Jaideep Saikia is a well-known conflict analyst and author of several bestselling books on security and strategy.)