By Namrata Goswami
The
Naga Peace Accord, a framework agreement as it has been termed, signed
between the National Socialist Council of Nagalim-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM)
and the Government of India on August 3 is significant for several
reasons.
First, it shows the flexibility and
realism of the NSCN (IM) in terms of the willingness to alter goals,
from complete sovereignty and Greater Nagalim to acceptance of the
constitutional framework albeit with a provision for the grant of
greater autonomy to Naga inhabited areas outside of Nagaland through the
establishment of autonomous district councils.
This indeed had been a sticking point in
negotiations as Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and Manipur had categorically
stated their opposition to any territorial division. Second, the
signing of the accord at this moment in time discloses that the platform
of social support for the NSCN (IM) comprising Naga civil society
groups are insistent on a peaceful path to conflict resolution.
The accord arrived at now ends the ceasefire process in existence since 1997 and locks in the NSCN (IM)’s commitment to peaceful
dialogue. The urgency to get a peace deal breakthrough had risen in the
backdrop of the rival NSCN (K) abrogating its cease-fire with the
Government of India on March 27, 2015, and following it up with the June
4 ambush in Manipur that killed 20 military personnel.
Third, the leaders of the NSCN (IM),
Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu (who has been unwell for some time
now), have been forthcoming since 2011 to sign a framework agreement
that pledges to preserve the culture, history and traditions of the
Nagas and grants greater autonomy to Naga inhabited areas outside of
Nagaland. Fourth, Modi’s own promise to resolve the Naga conflict within
an 18 months’ timeframe must have been a factor in the signing of the
framework agreement.
If the news about a non-territorial
resolution framework agreement holds true (details of the Accord are yet
to be released), then it is worth deep consideration by Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam and Manipur. It would enable them to maintain the
territorial status quo while only giving up developmental privileges in
their Naga inhabited areas to a new Naga non-territorial body.
A non-territorial resolution framework
also favours the Nagas as their core demands – such as recognition of
their “unique history” and culture, Naga leverage over deciding the
development path for the Naga inhabited areas, etc. – are met through
the grant of greater autonomy.
This is an optimal solution that would
address the concerns of all the relevant parties. For the Indian
government too, it results in recognizing the Naga’s “unique” history
and culture within the territorial and sovereign framework of the
Constitution.
The fact that such a non-territorial
resolution package had gained wide acceptance in Nagaland can be
discerned from the fact that former Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio along
with all 60 Nagaland State Assembly Members including MLAs of the
Opposition parties came out in support of such a framework in the year
2012.
Being politicians, none of these MLAs
would have openly supported such a framework had there been no support
for it in Naga society. A resolution of one of the oldest armed ethnic
conflicts in the Northeast offers a way forward to resolving many other
ethnic conflicts in the region such as those involving Kukis, Meiteis,
Bodos, Dimasas, Hmars, and Karbis.
The recent Bodo violence in Assam
against immigrant minority communities only highlighted the dangers of
an ethnically slanted territorial council that failed to safeguard the
physical security of minorities in Bodo inhabited areas. In that light, a
non-territorial resolution framework is perhaps the only feasible
outcome to the multiple ethnicity-driven conflicts in Northeast India.
