THE ceasefire between the Isac Muivah faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN I-M)—the dominant rebel group—and the Indian security forces has just completed a year and, as far as the Government of India is concerned, is being extended beyond July 31. This is to be welcomed and is entirely consistent with the growing desire of all the Naga peoples and, indeed, the people of the Northeast for peace and development. The Naga ho-hos (tribal assemblies) and United Naga Council have, among others, favoured its extension.
The ceasefire has worked by and large, though there have been armed clashes resulting in casualties between the two rival NSCN factions as the I-M group has sought to extend its influence in the Tuensang area which the Khaplang group claims as its turf. The NSCN(K) isn't a direct party to the ceasefire but has held to its position that it will not attack the security forces.
The ceasefire with the NSCN (I-M) was meant to be a prelude to a political dialogue that, it was hoped, might lead to a permanent Naga settlement. Preliminaries have been exchanged. It took time to agree on the ground rules and establish monitoring facilities. The present government has now appointed the former Mizoram governor, Mr Swaraj Kaushal, as its representative and the first round of talks lasted nearly 12 hours, over four sessions. A second round, in what could be a long series, may be held before long.
Meanwhile, Mr T. Muivah, general secretary of the NSCN (I-M), has expressed unhappiness at the form, pace and content of the process in a long interview he granted to Mr Bharat Bhushan of the Hindustan Times (July 11-13, 1998). Three issues were mentioned in particular. First, the coverage of the ceasefire and talks—not the state of Nagaland but all Naga-inhabited areas including those in Manipur, Assam, Arunachal and, separately, Myanmar. Secondly, sovereignty of self-determination for the Naga people and not merely within the framework of the Indian Constitution, which is amendable, or the Indian Union. And thirdly, the level of talks (prime ministerial) and their venue (outside India).
It should be possible to separate the geographical ambit of the ceasefire accord from the contours of the "ancestral Naga areas" to which Mr Muivah refers. The ceasefire is with the NSCN (I-M) and should appropriately extend to all the areas where the armed cadres of the formation operate. This is surely a ground reality while the other is a negotiating demand. The two need not be in conflict.
Again, the present core of the Naga-inhabited areas is Nagaland. The adjacent areas claimed are parts of other states or another country, Myanmar. A joining of all these territories with Nagaland is not in the gift of the Government of India. Manipur, for instance, is an ancient historical entity and not prepared to be dismembered at anybody's say-so. Likewise, Dimapur was formerly capital of the Dimasa kingdom, a legacy of the Bodo-Kachari dynasty, and only transferred by the Raj to the newly-created Naga Hills district in 1901 to provide a suitable railhead for its better administration.
The second question relates to sovereignty or self-determination. The Nagas are not a subject people. They enjoy full self-determination in Nagaland. Article 371-A safeguards their "religious and social practices, customary law and procedures". True, Mr Muivah stated that sovereignty is non-negotiable (North East Sun, September 1-14, 1997). But in that same interview with Deepak Dewan he was further quoted as saying: "India and Nagaland can't be kept separate. In many ways Nagas and India are inseparable. Why? Because geographical conditions are there; natural conditions are there. We cannot deny that". He added: "...When India wants to understand you, try to understand India".
That is the key: mutual understanding, and acceptance of realities. No one is forcing or should force the Nagas to act against their will. But the Nagas too seek development, technology, investments, security and opportunities for a better life—as do all other Indians. And they can hope to realise all of this sooner and more completely as part of a larger, plural, democratic entity. Peace is essential to reach this goal. So let the talks proceed and from better understanding will come agreement and a growing sense of togetherness.
The desire for closer bonds between all Naga peoples is understandable. This can, however, be realised by means other than a single statehood. India is now part of a globalising world. With deregulation, the government is yielding to governance and the state to civil society within a democratic frame. The Naga ho-hos embrace all tribes across state borders and there is already an all-Naga ho-ho extending beyond Nagaland. Given a steady improvement in Indo-Myanmar relations, there is no reason why this institution should not encompass the entire "ancestral homeland" in time.
It is for peoples to structure such associations which could graduate to ever-widening economic, cultural and other civil society roles through institutional development without impinging on state sovereignty. This would appear to be worthy of exploration. In such an eventuality, the trans-boundary bonding of all the Naga peoples could further cement Indo-Myanmarese and regional ties to everybody's benefit.
The dialogue that has commenced with the NSCN (I-M) could gradually and separately include other streams of Naga persuasion; not to divide and rule, but because they exist. Mr Muivah has, in his interviews, from time to time, recognised this even while denouncing various renegades and stooges. The level of the talks is a secondary matter. Mr Narasimha Rao, Mr Deve Gowda and Mr I.K. Gujral met the NSCN (I-M)leadership abroad. Mr A.B. Vajpayee is pursuing that same initiative which establishes continuity with change. This should be reassuring rather than alarming. And surely the talks are more important than the venue, though Mr Vajpayee too could meet with Mr Muivah and Mr Swu while on a foreign visit.
Progress will probably be gradual. That should not matter. The invitation to all Northeastern insurgent groups to talks remains open. The others are watching. The Naga dialogue interests and affects them all.
