The Naga peace process, an endeavour stretching across
decades, has reached a precarious juncture as the National Socialist Council of
Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) [NSCN(I-M)] has sought “third-party intervention” to
break the deadlock over the Framework Agreement signed with the Government of
India (GoI) in 2015. The agreement, once hailed as a “historic” milestone, now
stands overshadowed by mutual accusations and unfulfilled promises. NSCN(I-M),
led by its Chief Political Negotiator Thuingaleng Muivah, has accused the
Indian government of reneging on its commitments and refusing to recognise the
“Nagalim sovereign national flag” and “Nagalim sovereign national
constitution.” This refusal has become the primary source of discord, prompting
the NSCN(I-M) to threaten a return to armed resistance if the government
imposes a political solution without these demands.
The idea of Nagalim encompasses all Naga-inhabited areas
across Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh. For NSCN(I-M), the flag
and constitution are non-negotiable components of sovereignty. This rigid
stance has stalled progress, exacerbating the uncertainty surrounding the peace
process.
Historical Context
and Evolution of the Naga Peace Talks
The Naga political struggle traces its roots back to the
mid-20th century, with the peace talks formally beginning on August 1, 1997.
The Framework Agreement, signed on August 3, 2015, was perceived as a beacon of
hope. Muivah and then-Interlocutor R.N. Ravi signed the agreement in the
presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other senior government officials,
heralding it as a major breakthrough. Both parties emphasised mutual respect,
equality, and shared sovereignty in the spirit of the agreement, sparking
optimism for a long-awaited resolution.
However, the lack of transparency regarding the agreement’s
content created uncertainty among the Naga population. The vague articulation
of the Naga “unique history and position” left many unanswered questions
regarding its implications for Nagaland and Naga-inhabited areas in
neighbouring states. This ambiguity sowed seeds of mistrust, which later grew
into significant obstacles in the peace process.
Muivah has consistently claimed that the agreements signed
by the NSCN(I-M) -- including the Amsterdam Joint Communique of 2002 and the
Framework Agreement of 2015 -- recognised Nagalim’s sovereignty. According to
him, these agreements acknowledged the Indo-Naga conflict as one between two
sovereign entities, paving the way for a “shared sovereign power” arrangement.
The GoI, however, has not made any official statements supporting this
interpretation.
Parallel Negotiations
and Competing Visions
The GoI’s strategy to initiate parallel negotiations with
the Naga National Political Groups (NNPG) -- a conglomerate of seven other Naga
factions -- further complicated the peace process. In 2017, the NNPG and the
GoI signed an “Agreed Position,” which emphasised deriving sovereign powers
from the Indian Constitution. The NNPG proposed that unresolved issues could be
addressed through political representation in new legislative and
constitutional bodies following the final settlement.
While the NNPG demonstrated a willingness to work within the
framework of the Indian Constitution, the NSCN(I-M) remained firm on its demand
for a separate flag and constitution. The GoI, however, has made it clear that
a single accord with all Naga factions is the only way forward. The lack of
consensus between the NSCN(I-M) and the NNPG on these core issues has stalled
progress on the final agreement.
Stalemate and the
Challenges of Shared Sovereignty
The divergence in interpretations of the Framework Agreement
came to a head in 2019 when negotiations halted over the contentious issues of
a separate flag and constitution. Attempts to revive the talks in 2022, under
new Interlocutor A.K. Mishra, have yielded little progress. NSCN(I-M) leaders,
including Chairman Q. Tuccu and Muivah, have accused the GoI of manipulating
the Framework Agreement for its convenience and delaying its implementation.
The NSCN(I-M) views the flag and constitution as integral
components of sovereignty. On the other hand, the GoI has remained steadfast in
its refusal to accommodate these demands, creating an impasse. Tuccu has argued
that the agreement was intended to rectify historical injustices and that the
GoI’s failure to uphold it betrays the spirit of the accord.
Mineral Resources and
Article 371A
The issue of sovereignty extends beyond political and
cultural realms to include economic dimensions. NSCN(I-M) has claimed ownership
of major mineral resources, including petroleum, in Nagalim. This claim
conflicts with the GoI’s efforts to explore oil in disputed areas along the
Assam-Nagaland border. While Assam and Nagaland have agreed in principle to
joint exploration, the NSCN(I-M) and other Naga organisations oppose such
initiatives until the political issue is resolved.
Article 371A of the Indian Constitution, which provides
special protections to Nagaland, has become another contentious point.
Sub-clause (a) of Article 371A(1) grants the Nagaland Assembly significant
autonomy in matters of religion, customary law, and resource ownership.
However, the NSCN(I-M) argues that Article 371A is insufficient and
obstructive, demanding a more comprehensive framework that aligns with the
Framework Agreement.
Prospects for
Resolution
The prolonged stalemate has led to frustration among
stakeholders, including the Nagaland government, which convened a consultative
meeting in September 2023 to urge unity among Naga factions. The meeting also
called for elevating the peace talks to a senior Union Cabinet Minister’s level
and appointing a new interlocutor to expedite the process.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs has
noted the complexities of the Naga issue. In its 2018 report, the committee
highlighted NSCN(I-M)’s insistence on sovereignty and its reluctance to
integrate fully within India. While the Framework Agreement marked a departure
from the NSCN(I-M)’s earlier stance, the organisation’s hardened position on the
flag and constitution suggests deep-rooted mistrust and competing visions of
sovereignty.
The Naga peace process stands at a critical juncture, with
the stakes higher than ever. The veil of secrecy surrounding the Framework
Agreement, coupled with divergent interpretations, has created a trust deficit
that hinders progress. The GoI’s insistence on a single accord, combined with
the NSCN(I-M)’s unyielding demands, has made reconciliation elusive.
As the impasse persists, the six-decade-long conflict risks
further escalation. A resolution requires addressing the core issues of
sovereignty, identity, and resource ownership with sensitivity and
transparency. Only through genuine dialogue, mutual respect, and creative
problem-solving can the fragile peace process be steered toward a sustainable
and inclusive settlement.
Dipak Kurmi
The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com
