‘Constitutional moment’
Sheer duration of the conflict exhausted the rebels to settle for a special federal relationship
NEW DELHI: Two issues have dominated the relationship between the Government of India and Naga rebels. One was the historical Naga opposition to accepting Indian sovereignty. Naga groups believed the Naga people were distinct and unique; that their inclusion in the Indian union was illegal; and that they could not accept the supremacy of the Indian constitution.
But the sheer duration of the conflict and prolonged peace talks exhausted the Naga rebels to broadly tone down their demand, and settle for a special federal relationship with India. Many in Nagaland were fatigued with the conflict. The fragmented, corrupt and often violent rebel outfits offered little hope.
A compromise appeared to be the only way out. By acknowledging the uniqueness of the Nagas and committing to address their aspirations, t he Gover nment of I ndia provided a cover to the dominant faction of the rebels to backtrack from their stated positions.
The second, related, and seeming intractable i ssue was the NSCN’s core ideological goal of creating a Greater Nagaland, inclusive of all Naga areas in Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Myanmar. In real political terms, the Naga leaders on the Indian side — Isak and Muivah —were willing to drop the demand to include parts of Myanmar.
But internal reconfiguration was not easy either in the multi-ethnic landscape that constitutes each Northeastern state.
Each time there was even a remote indication that Naga areas of Manipur could be accommodated in a new Naga state structure, local tribes there rebelled and brought the state to a halt. This suited the hardliners in the Indian establishment who were happy to play divide and rule politics.
So the peace process was locked in this particular dilemma. Status quo — dropping sovereignty and accepting the same terms that governed the Centre-Nagaland relationship — was not acceptable to the Naga rebels. Changing national borders was unacceptable to the Indian state, and even redrawing internal borders appeared impossible.
Soon after the accord was signed, eminent political scientist Sanjib Baruah told HT the signing ceremony — the contents of the Prime Minister’s speech, his homage to the Nagas, their culture and their history, the presence of a large number of Naga leaders, the PM’s decision to speak in English — was “impressive”.
Baruah said the fact that the accord was the culmination of an 18-year-long peace process where there was significant input from Naga civil society gave him the sense of something akin to a ‘constitutional moment’.
“Such moments of optimism are important in the collective life of any society: they mark the determination of political leaders to look beyond the past, and build a new future.”
But he pointed to the real challenge ahead. “The details of the accord will be important. Without them we can’t say much about its significance beyond Nagaland: for peace in the region as a whole.”
Such moments of optimism are important in the collective life of any society: they mark the determination of political leaders to look beyond the past, and build a new future. The details of the accord will be important. Without them, we can’t say much about its significance beyond Nagaland: for peace in the region as a whole. SANJIB BARUAH, Political scientist