By M C Arun
The current notion of “Naga solution” looks like a solution of the parties involved in the ongoing peace process. It does not mean any solution for the Naga people as a whole. The words are in political domain to mean the ‘agreed upon’ points between the Government of India and the Naga insurgent groups. The people’s sufferings or aspirations are not within the ambit of the ongoing peace talks. The political dialogue with or without arms mainly focuses on the insurgent leaders and representatives of Government of India. It concerns on the likes and dislikes of the parties involved in the talk. The people’s aspirations and their achievements, their sufferings and their successes in last five decades are not taken into account by either of the two parties. Naga tribal societies have changed from egalitarian or ranked society to stratified society. The emergence of Naga middle class is obviously visible now. These changes, the gaps between the Naga social groupings and new social order in a stratified society are not taken into account while projecting Naga interests by insurgent groups, political parties and even the Government of India. The agenda of the peace talk is crystal clear; the talk itself is the main agenda. Both the parties do not like to run away from the talks. Meaning, the Naga interests are becoming secondary issues at this point of historical juncture. It is unique with regard to conflict resolution. Because of the nature of ongoing peace talks, all the parties do not disclose what is going on inside the negotiating rooms. However, the generated public debate over the Special Arrangement of Nagas across four States of North East India raises many questions: is it the permanent solution to the Nagas? Does the Special arrangement appeal to all the aspirations of the Nagas (this question is more prominently seen in the dialogues among the Naga insurgent groups)? Why should Nagas enjoy a special status while similar problems and uniqueness are there in other tribal societies not only in North East India but also in other parts of the country? Is India a nation or a mere mosaic of unique histories or an owner of a common history of its people? Did India fail to evolve a national mainstream in its post-independence history? The peace talks are going on with various other insurgent groups of North East India including pro-talk ULFA. Many other insurgent groups of different colours and kinds may come to the “negotiating table”. If so, how many more special arrangements could be made in future. The arrangements may pose bigger problems than the present ones. Why then, are the contents of the Naga peace talks kept secret from the general public upon which any agreement would affect in one way or other? The problem cannot be looked only from the angle of ‘territorial integrity’ of the States. The problem should be solved anyway but Naga public and public of the involved States should be taken into confidence. The ‘agreed upon’ formula should be applicable to all others, similar in historical and social conditions. If we can proceed beyond State boundaries, will we be ready to have similar arrangements for Kashmiris or Punjabis? Will it be applicable for the Manipuris who live across Indian States, Myanmar and Bangladesh?
The Naga struggle is old. The history of Naga insurgency clearly shows that the period of armed struggle is shorter than the political dialogues without using arms. The struggle brought the Naga tribes to higher political arrangements step by step. Even the identity of the Naga dramatically changes over time due to this struggle. At the end of a phase, the “Nagas” gained politically, socially, culturally and economically. This is the beauty of Naga Peace Talk politics. Unlike other insurgent movements in North East India, the Nagas gained in terms of political status, economic development and world outlook. The movement is the driving force of “Naga Unification” while many other insurgency politics brings out ethnic fissions. The struggle needs to be understood in its totality. The present juncture gives a chance to unite the so-called Naga tribes across the State boundaries which is ground for a larger political movement; it may not, for time being, redraw the maps of North East Indian States. Therefore, the Special Arrangement with ‘constitutional amendment’ is what some Naga frontal organizations cry for ‘Alternative Arrangement’. Politically speaking, it is not over the Autonomous District Council or extension of Sixth Schedule in Manipur. The goal is larger than these issues. The Naga have a strong sense of patience to materialize their dream in future. To keep the history rolling in their favour they have to invent one enemy or another. For the present, the Meitei is projected as their enemy by some Naga groups. What they lack is the Meitei response to their hate campaign. The political mantra is that a step of today’s Naga leader may lead to a giant leap in future. However, the cultural and social experiences of the Naga tribes in different States are different; their tastes of time are also different. The aspirations of Manipur Naga leaders are different from those of the Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh due to the differences in their lives in different social and historical conditions. Their interactions with other ethnic groups and majority groups are also different. The exaggerations of their bitter experiences or invented hatred to majority groups may not attract attentions of other Naga groups of different social and historical conditions. These differences may explain the felt-needed urgency of a solution before the Nagaland State Assembly Election 2013. The felt-needed urgency is so suddenly created. Many political parties move for it so impatiently. The differences may also explain why many groups look differently to the ‘Special Arrangement Solution’. As the Government of India does not see the Naga problem on the North East Indian Canvas, the Solution may not last long. Solution may become fractured even among different Naga insurgent groups or Naga groups. If the Solution is the ground for larger social and political problem in future, then, the Agreement itself is a problem today.
On the other hand, Assam and Manipur speak loud and clear, at least in front of their respective public, that they will not part with any portion of their land for the Naga solution. This is not the way the people (both of the Nagas and non-Nagas) in the North East India expect from these Governments and of Arunachal Pradesh. These Governments should play pro-active role in solving the Naga problem. The Government of India should not be put on a tightrope so that an agreement or any solution is amicably found out. North East Indians and their governments should take part in finding the way-out to the problem. The Government of India also should put the development of the Peace Talks transparent to all the Indians including the Indians of this region. In the long history of mankind in this part of the globe, the inter-group problems had been solved cordially in past days. The Centre should handle Naga problem alone on their demand of sovereignty only. Other aspects of the ongoing Peace Process should be opened to all; it will give a permanent solution to the Naga people. This will stop repetition of Shillong Accord history.
Solution to the Naga problem is not only for the Nagas as a people; it should be model for other problems in India or even in the world. If Government of India is trying to find a model, it should be universal at least in India. Piecemeal approach to such a complex problem will not yield any fruit. We, the people of India, in the post-independence period, have to work out a solution without any hidden agenda. The solution should address all the troubles, difficulties, hardship, aspirations of the Naga people and the people of entire North East India, at least. A minor mistake in the process may yield an ugly turn of the history. There lies the need of addressing all the issues of the Nagas as well as of others. India needs to take the Naga solution as a model of conflict resolution rather than example to other North Easterners. The Nagaland Election is not that important to the development of a model. Desperation out of long talk series should not overcome the real need of history.
Giving some token power to Naga inhabited areas, claimed by the Nagas, may not be the solution either to the North East problem as such or the Naga problem. It is just an invitation to conflict between Naga insurgent leaders’ false pride and sentiments of other ethnic groups. It is a way to conflict between the State and oncoming Center-backed power centers. Or it may lead to conflict between ‘States’ within States which will be more intensified and dangerous.