Nagaland and the Northeast

The Indian government's announcement in June 2001, of the extension of the five year old Naga ceasefire by another year and enlarging its scope to cover not just the state of Nagaland but also all the neighbouring states which have Naga populations has elicited strong opposition from the states of Assam and Manipur. More than anything else the violent opposition to the Naga ceasefire suggests one thing. There are limits to trying to end insurgencies through secretive deal-making between Indian bureaucrats and leaders of one or the other insurgent organisations.

There is a real possibility that the leadership of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Issac-Muivah), the Naga signatory to the ceasefire agreement, is willing to settle the conflict on honourable terms. But since the idea of Naga independence from India will have to be given up, the Manipuris, Assamese and Arunachalis fear that the quid pro quo for a face-saving compromise maybe the idea of Nagalim—a Nagaland that would include other Naga-inhabited areas lying in these states. The idea of extending the ceasefire to areas other than Nagaland is thus seen as an indicator that such a concession may be made. What is amazing is that, in a democracy, all this action and reaction is based on rumors, fears, anxieties—things that could have been handled by a more open and participatory mode of conflict resolution, say through a peace conference where all interested parties might be represented.

The reason that Manipuris have always had more anxieties on the issue than anyone else lies in the history of the Manipuri kingdom. In some ways Manipuri fears about creating a Nagalim is not unlike Assamese fears about what a Bodoland might do to the territory of Assam. To elaborate, the Manipuri kingdom's historical relationship with some Nagas: in the article "Generals as Governors" (June 2001), I wrote about the political rituals of the Manipuri kings. The installation ceremony of the Manipuri kings called for the queen to appear in Naga costume; the royal palace always had a house built in Naga style; and when the king travelled he was attended on by two or three Manipuris with Naga arms, dress and ornaments. This even led a colonial official, James Johnstone, to speculate that like the Manchus of China, the Manipuri kings may have been Nagas who adopted the civilisation of Manipur.

It is not surprising then that the fear that the Naga areas of Manipur might be lopped off to constitute a greater Nagaland evokes enormous anxieties among all Meities. But who has time for such history? Least of all the Indian home ministry bureaucrats, who are thinking about their next plum appointment in Washington D.C. A few Manipuris or Assamese killed in the process. Oops— they forgot to think of that.

What they refuse to understand is that a more open peace process has the potential to bring all contending parties to at least a minimal understanding. Consider this Calcutta dateline report in The Times of India titled "Naga students lend sympathy to Manipuris" by Nirmalya Banerjee:

"Surprising as it may sound, some Naga students here actually sympathise with the people of Manipur over the extension of the ceasefire with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) to a large part of Manipur. 'I think the Manipuris are justified in their grievance,' president of the Naga Students Union Imsupongen said on Tuesday. The union is an affiliate of the Kohima-based Naga Students Federation. He said the Centre had by-passed the Manipur government while taking the decision on the extension of the ceasefire. 'Every state government has the right to have its say on affairs within its territorial jurisdiction.'"

This news item points to all the possibilities offered by doing things a different way. Naga students have seen the merits of the Manipuri point of view. It illustrates what can be achieved if you trust people and democratic processes. If you have everbody with a stake in the Naga question represented in one room with skilful conflict mediators, have a dialogue over a period of time, people can learn about each other's point of view and might be able to arrive at compromises. Not that everyone would agree to that idea initially. But at least that can be a worthwhile goal to aim for if we are interested in ending insurgencies in the Northeast.

As things stand, the rules of the game are that if you can cause enough disruption and mayhem, the powers that be in Delhi might give in to your demands. So the incentive for each insurgent group is to cause enough mayhem in support of their demands. And as New Delhi gets close to giving in, you will have these massive outbreaks of dissatisfaction from other sections of society that have an obvious stake in the issue. Obviously, there is a world of difference between peace conferences, round-table conferences, and secret deals.