Image Credit: REUTERS/Adnan Abidi
After six decades, a resolution to India’s insurgency remains elusive.
Ever
since Independence, peace and stability have been treasured luxuries in
the Indian states of Nagaland and Manipur. In the last two decades,
however, while peace talks may have produced little in the way of
progress, ceasefire agreements with the various warring groups have at
least provided a relative peace.
The Naga issue is the major threat to peace in India’s Northeast.
Broadly speaking, the insurgent groups National Socialist Council of
Nagaland – Khaplang (NSCN-K) and the National Socialist Council of
Nagaland – Isak Muivah (NSCN-IM), which claim to represent the Nagas,
demand that a territory known as Nagalim (or Greater Nagaland) – which
would include the present state of Nagaland along with roughly four
districts of Manipur and parts of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh where
Nagas live – be carved out to address the Naga issue. The proposed
region of Nagalim would also include a not insignificant chunk of
Myanmar, making this an international issue.
Fifteen years back the Indian government agreed to a ceasefire with
the two major Naga insurgent groups, and both sides called for solutions
through negotiations. Unfortunately, nothing worthwhile was achieved,
except the routine extension of the ceasefire. Then, in an unprecedented
move, the Myanmar-based S.S. Khaplang faction of NSCN, NSCN-K
unilaterally
withdrew from the ceasefire
on March 27. This move will have far-reaching repercussions for the
local population. Once again, it seems, Nagaland is on the verge of a
nasty bloodbath. In the last 14 years, with the NSCN-IM and NSCN-K
observing ceasefires with the government, the Nagas have become
accustomed to relative peace. Now the future appears uncertain.
This was brought home by an
attack last month
on Assam Rifles personnel in the Mon district of Nagaland, in which
eight soldiers were killed by NSCN-K cadres. The attack underscores the
political uncertainty and associated risk of violence in a region that
otherwise has immense potential for development.
On close observation, there are three primary reasons for this move by the Khaplang faction of NSCN.
Loss of Public Support
First, over the years during which the ceasefire agreements held, the
insurgent groups in Nagaland increasingly lost the public support they
once enjoyed. Violence has given way to comparative peace and locals are
realizing (even if slowly) that their grievances will not be solved
through the barrel of a gun. The younger generation no longer has the
same sympathy towards the insurgent groups that their parents did. They
have been witness to development. Many have been exposed to life in
cities like Delhi, Bangalore, Pune, and Kolkata. They have seen the
possibilities the big cities offer. They have seen their counterparts
elsewhere in India prosper and so are now more inclined to seek to make a
living by hard work rather than by taking up arms. The floating
population has also exposed those back home to the prospects of the
cities, and this to a great extent has redefined their understanding of
development. The message is clear, at least among youth, that violence
is now a failed strategy.
Moreover, the ideology of the Naga leaders has stagnated. It has not
evolved with the times. There is nothing new in their proposed glorious
future nor is there anything fresh in their strategy to attain it. Put
simply, Naga leaders are failing to capture the imagination of the
present generation. This is an issue explored in a recent
report in
Nagaland Post – a leading daily from Nagaland – which appeared in the wake of the May 3 killings.
In a bid to make its presence felt in the Naga community and save
itself from extinction, the Khaplang faction has ventured back onto the
path of violence. But while the ceasefire agreement had its drawbacks,
it at least ensured that no lives were lost.
Sidelined
Second, there was a general apprehension within the Khaplang faction that
New Delhi is systematically sidelining it from the Naga talks.
There is considerable merit in this apprehension. In fact, when the
ceasefire was first announced it was with NSCN-IM, and not with NSCN-K.
It was only later, following violent protests in Manipur and other
regions, that the ceasefire was extended to NSCN-K. Throughout the talks
on the Naga issue New Delhi in one way or the other has considered the
Muhiva faction NSCN-IM to be the “genuine” representative of the Nagas.
This is largely because NSCN-K is seen to have its stronghold in the
Naga-dominated areas of Myanmar rather than in India.
Evidence of New Delhi’s indifference towards the Khaplang faction can
be gauged from the Uninion Minister of State for Home Minister (GOI),
Kiren Rijju’s
statement
in parliament. In a written reply Rijju said, “NSCN-K has walked out
from the dialogue process with GOI. NSCN-K with its Myanmar based
leadership is mainly interested in extortion and has nothing to do with
Naga issues.” He added that “security forces would react accordingly” in
response to the May 3 attack by NSCN-K and that “talks with NSCN (I-M)
for settlements are continuing and interlocutor has been appointed for
the purpose.”
This proximity of New Delhi to the Muhiva faction has made Khaplang
prudent about its own position. Thus moving out of the ceasefire
agreement at present provides the Khaplang faction with a chance to
reposition itself in the Naga talks.
Infighting
Third, the Khaplang group has lately been troubled by ongoing
infighting within its own ranks. Of late there has emerged a clutch of
leading figures (among them Wangtin Naga, P Tikhak, and Wanglon Konyak)
have favored peace talks with New Delhi and even diluting the group’s
staunch demand of a separate Naga homeland. This, they believed, is a
more realistic approach at the moment. However, Khaplang thinks
otherwise and believes that any talk with India cannot undermine the
principle of sovereignty of the Naga people. It is thus not surprising
that the day NSCN-K walked away from the ceasefire agreements these
rebel leaders themselves walked out of the group and formed one of their
own called National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Reformation. Within
days NSCN-R had signed a ceasefire agreement with the Indian
government.
It is clear that the recent moves by the Khaplang faction are part of
an effort to answer its own existential question and reposition itself
within Naga politics. But this effort also jeopardizes the lives and
liberty of the local population.
These developments in the Northeast have far-reaching implications for the stability of the region. It also
clouds the future of India’s ambitious “Act East” policy,
which aims to deepen trade relations with Southeast Asia. India cannot
enjoy a healthy trade relationship with this part of Asia if it does not
have a peaceful Northeast.
Further complicating the issues is the fact that NSCN-K has
signed ceasefire agreements with the Myanmar government and that the Nagas have been accorded autonomous status in certain regions. Writing for the
Indian Express Sanjib Batuah
observed,
“Increasingly, the Indian approach to the Naga conflict is at odds with
developments across the border. The ceasefire between the government of
India and the S.S. Khaplang-led faction of the NSCN has unraveled and
there have been attacks on Indian soldiers by NSCN-K militants. But
across the border, relations between Khaplang and the Myanmar government
have been on the upswing. The group has signed a five-point agreement
with the Thein Sein government. The terms include a ceasefire, the
opening of a liaison office to facilitate talks and freedom of movement
for unarmed cadres within Myanmar.”
The six-decade history of the Naga issue suggests that violence has
done more harm than good. While peace talks are the only rational
solution, New Delhi must realize that by sidelining a faction of the
NSCN in the talks, it is only perpetuating the chaos and breeding future
resentment.
New Delhi also urgently needs to boost its ties with Myanmar, not
only in terms of trade relations but also to help it resolve the Naga
issue, which troubles both countries. While Myanmar has been able to
handle its problem with the Nagas quite well (mainly by according them
autonomous status and entering into ceasefire agreements), India has
allowed the issue to drag on for six decades. Nor is there any
resolution in sight.
An early solution to the Nagas is in everyone’s interests. Only when
peace is ensured can development can take place. The hills of Nagaland
and Manipur will echo with bullets as long as the leaders continue to
embroil local communities in their ambitious projects. It is time now
for these same communities to make themselves the architects of their
own future – a future that should be marked by stability, development,
and peace.
Mukesh Rawat is a freelance journalist based in New Delhi and has spent seven years in various regions of Northeast India. mukeshrawat705@gmail.com Twitter: @mukeshrawat705
