Naga Dream Still Distant

By Pradip Phanjoubam

December is an auspicious festive month for most of Christian Northeast. In the Christian states of Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, and to a great extent Manipur, red ‘Star of David’ lanterns on numerous rooftops light up the cold evenings in the streets of Kohima, Aizawl, Shillong and Imphal, setting the mood for celebrations and soul cleansing, and much reflections on the year that was. In trouble torn Nagaland and Manipur, however, the celebratory mood is subdued.

Hanging in the backdrop is the 11-year itch of the unsettled peace negotiation underway between the underground Naga group, NSCN(IM) and the Indian government. Ceasefire between the two entities began in 1997, and peace negotiations followed but the talks are still in dreadful stalemate, though each side continues to claim approaching a breakthrough and then blame each other for it not happening.

The reasons are not far to seek. One, the Naga insurgent movement is badly fragmented, with factional fights consuming much of the energy and public patience. A reconciliatory move commendably brought some of these factions together this year, but not every issue is settled and internal strife and sporadic bloody mayhems still mark the scenario. But the second reason should be much more frustrating for those pursuing a happy reconciliation to a problem that is as old as the Indian state. It speaks of a looming shadow of doubt of a possibility of the Naga dream if it is not moderated by an acceptance of modern realities.

Equally, at this moment, this moderation and the compromise called for seems too much for the Naga underground leaders to accept. The Naga leaders’ foremost goal is the creation of a greater Naga homeland that they have christened ‘Nagalim’ by merging territories of other states neighbouring Nagaland (and Myanmar) that they believe traditionally belonged to the Nagas. Once this is done, the degree of autonomy ‘Nagalim’ is to enjoy within the Indian Union is to be negotiated.

However, the shadow falls at the very outset on this very notion of territory. This could not have been spelled out louder and clearer than in the tussle over the creation of a new administrative district called SADAR hills (Special Area Demarcated as Autonomous Region) in Manipur. This new district is Kuki tribal dominated and is to be carved out of the Naga dominated Senapati district. The Kukis want it and the Nagas think the idea itself is an aggression on the Nagas. Friction between the two over the matter led to a 121-day blockade of Manipur recently.

The issue is too entangled to present an easy solution. The principal GoI negotiator, a retired bureaucrat, RS Pandey, did give it a shot with a recommendation he purportedly made, as was exposed by a Guwahati-based English daily. His proposal of a ‘Supra State’ status for the Nagas created quite a flutter.
Although the intent to bring to a closure the Naga problem is admirable the pertinent question is has the model taken care of existing realities, some of which can cause extreme strife in the Northeast’s ethnic cauldron? What exactly was the Supra State meant to be, if this proposal exists? Home minister P Chidambaram has since denied any knowledge of the proposal.

Even if his statement amounts playing his cards close to the chest, it does still indicate he too thinks the proposal is problematic.

The ‘Supra State’ in this context in all probability is a non-territorial solution of the nature so many intellectuals, including BK Roy Burman of the Centre for Study of Developing Societies, have advocated in reference to the Northeast’s many ethnic problems, and in particular the Nagas. The model conjures up the Sami parliament in the Scandinavian countries. The Samis are formerly nomadic indigenous reindeer herders living in Scandinavia and the Russian Federation before the region came to be dissected by political boundaries. They now find themselves living in different countries, though their traditional world never had any conception of such national boundaries, precisely because nation consciousness dawned on them late. An arrangement has now been made so that they can call themselves one people and nation but with no territory earmarked for their ‘nation.’

The NSCN(IM) leadership and their supporters everywhere have been maintaining a deafening silence on the proposal. Perhaps it was unilateral, put up by the negotiation interlocutor and not one on which there was a consensus amongst the negotiating parties. For indeed, if the proposal is modelled on the Sami Parliament, the NSCN(IM) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah had in the past rejected it and it is unlikely he would have had a change of heart now.

Even if Muivah agreed, two considerations would have been deterrents. One, if ‘Nagalim’ is not to be, the solution would leave a major section of the NSCN(IM)’s top leadership and cadres out of the core of the solution, as they belong to Manipur and not Nagaland. Two, any solution that does not address the question of sovereignty, even if notionally, would have to be after intense negotiations with the Naga public first, especially in the core Naga territory of the former Naga hills of Assam (now Nagaland), who have had to undergo tremendous hardships and losses for over half a century precisely because of their dream for Naga sovereignty.

While one hopes a solution to the Naga problem comes about soon, as of now, it is difficult to see such blueprints. The reported ‘Supra State’ definitely does not seem to offer one.

The writer is editor, Imphal Free Press