A thoughtless move

THE UNION GOVERNMENT'S approach to seeking a negotiated settlement with the rebel outfits in Nagaland seem to be marked by such carelessness that it defies all logic. If the announcement on June 14, 2001, extending the four-year-old ceasefire agreement with the NSCN(I- M) and enlarging its scope to all Naga-inhabited areas outside Nagaland had led to the setting of Imphal (and other parts of Manipur) on fire, the loud thinking by the Union Home Ministry now on appointing the Nationalist Congress Party leader and former Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. P. A. Sangma, as the chief negotiator has once again lit the fire. Even if this was only an idea in the minds of the Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, and his officials, the damage seems to have been done. There are statements on behalf of the two NSCN(I-M) leaders - Mr. Thiuangaleng Muivah and Mr. Issac Chisi Swu - against the idea of having to negotiate with a political leader. And the negotiations with the NSCN(I-M), which are indeed the very basis for any hope of a solution to the crisis in Nagaland, now seem to be uncertain.

That those involved with the issue in the Union Home Ministry did not care even to take into account a guiding principle that the NSCN(I-M) claims to have laid down even before entering the negotiations (four years ago on the basis of an initiative at that time by Mr. Swaraj Kaushal who acted as the Centre's emissary with the rebel outfit) - that it will not negotiate with anyone from among the political class - is indeed baffling. And the blame for such a casual and reckless approach cannot rest with the officials in the Union Home Ministry alone. After all, the top leaders of the ruling NDA, including the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, had been taking part in the discussion on the crisis in Nagaland in recent times. And it is only fair to expect them to take the issue with a lot more seriousness than is in evidence now. If it is true that the NSCN(I-M) leaders had laid down the exclusion of members of the political class from the negotiations, it was important that Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Advani ensured that any such thinking to nominate Mr. Sangma as chief negotiator was discouraged at the very movement it was broached. Instead, they let it be known through the media that Mr. Sangma was likely to be the negotiator with the NSCN(I-M) on behalf of the Centre. This was reported even while Mr. Padmanabiah was in Amsterdam talking to Mr. Muivah, casting doubts over the credibility of the ongoing negotiations.

There are larger concerns as well. It is not clear even now as to what exactly is the position of the NSCN(I-M) on the issue of a ``greater Nagaland.'' That this demand of the NSCN groups is not one that seeks a redrawing of the political map in the Northeastern region needs to be borne in mind. The demand for a ``greater Nagaland'' is one that seeks a separate nation outside India. Even if it be true that the NSCN(I-M) as such has refrained from coming out explicitly in recent times with the demand for ``greater Nagaland'', the fact is that Mr. Muivah has gone on record several times in the past few weeks that he remains committed to the idea. And yet, those at the helm in the Home Ministry have refused to speak categorically against the idea even while holding out the assurance that the ceasefire agreement with the NSCN(I-M) will in no way endanger the territorial integrity of any of the States in the region. Concern over the greater Nagaland demand and the fact that there is yet another faction of the NSCN - the Kaplang faction - is only natural particularly in the context of the manner in which the Union Government has been dealing with the crisis. It is time the Nagaland issues and indeed the whole of the Northeast was attended to with a greater degree of seriousness at the highest levels.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Tamil Nadu's task ahead