Finally, what should not have been was and that was also not to be. The Prime Minister Atal Bahari Vajpayee and his home minister L.K. Advani’s assurances that the demand of the states with regard to the expansion of the cease fire would be taken into account but at the same time not saying much beyond that point bought time but at great cost. It is also not known if after reneging on its commitment — with or without the knowledge or approval of the NSCN (I-M) — New Delhi would be able to hammer out a meaningful solution or would it simply hammer away at some economic package for Nagas outside Nagaland.

These are questions that are uppermost in the minds of people even as leaders are trying to fathom what transpired at the meeting between the government of India’s interlocutor K. Padmanbhaiah and NSCN
(I-M) supremo Th. Muivah at their Amsterdam meeting on July 23 and 24 since the former’s briefing to the prime minister clearly tipped the scales on the reviewal of the cease fire. As both the government of India and the NSCN (I-M) had made the cease fire and its ground rules through bilateral agreement at Bangkok on June 14 last, the centre’s decision to confine the cease fire only within Nagaland state appears to have been taken unilaterally; unless it was done with the consent of the other party.

However, as per the statement of the NSCN (I-M), there was no agreement on reviewing the Bangkok Agreement and therefore, the NSCN(I-M) has clearly stated, that anything more that was being said by the government of India and the media as discussed in Amsterdam, will not be acceptable to the NSCN(I-M). Even as there is a feeling of having been shortchanged by the Centre on the issue of the jurisdiction of the cease fire, it is hoped that Naga NGOs would not resort to the same methods that were displayed in a neighbouring state.

Since the Naga political issue appears to have been discredited by the "greater Nagaland" phobia, it is now for the factions to see whether they have learnt any lesson from the events but yet feel they cannot go to the negotiating table under a broad-based understanding, despite the personal vendetta of some of their leaders. One thing that has come out clearly against the current factionalism, is that so long as this remains there can never be any meaningful solution. As commented earlier in this column, the Naga political issue concerns the Nagas irrespective of where they have been grouped-Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh or Myanmar. When the movement began it was clear that Nagas were reiterating their independence and they were not fighting for statehood. If the Naga problem was about economics then, like the Mizo problem, it should have ended once Nagaland was created as a state in 1963. The Naga movement began since 1923 although the winds of awareness was there much earlier. The movement was a reaffirmation to live freely and the Nagas all across their lands-made a covenant to defend their right.

The people lived as one without political boundaries but due to a quirk in history, they were placed under different set ups. As much as the Naga political issue is about a people, their right to choose and aspirations that invariable mean their land, culture and environment etc, which rise beyond artificial boundaries; it is also enough to mean that the Naga-ness also calls for a united effort to pursue what is good in the large interest of all. When the Naga issue is referred to as a five-decade old problem, it stands to reason, that the NNC and FGN must also be acknowledged and the organisation given due respect.

Nagaland Post