Whatever said and done, it is a matter of scepticism as to whether the much awaited solution of the dialogue between GOI and NSCN(IM) is facing rough road as per media reports. The contours of disputes over few issues which are probably part of the agenda of the dialogue between NSCN(IM) and GOI have of late become prominently exposed as per claims followed by rebutting by both the parties at regular intervals as appeared in local medias.
The first contour is the unbridled denial of Sri. Rijiju, Union Minister of State for Home that separate passport and Naga flag were agreed for the Nagas as per Eastern Mirror dated 23.6.2016. Following Rijiju, an Indian ‘top official’ who attended a high level meeting reportedly reacted saying ‘Whoever is making these claims (separate passport and separate flag for the Nagas) is not true’ as I am quoting from Nagaland Page dated 27.6.2016. Possibly, as per Nagaland Page dated 27.6.2016, the claims made by RH Raising, Kilo Kilonser of NSCN(IM) that ‘GOI had agreed for a separate passport and a separate flag’ on 20th June, 2016 invited both the Union Minister and the Union Home Ministry official to refute such claim.
The second dispute contour is the contradiction to 18 months time frame as announced by BJP Govt. when it came to power 2 years ago. Nagaland Page headlined this in its front page on 27.6.2016 that ‘the official’ was not sure of whether GOI has kept any ‘time frame’ within which the negotiation has to be brought to a logical conclusion. This doubt has discredited the euphoric taunt of NSCN(IM) that ‘The moment of triumph and jubilation is too near to be impatient’ as appeared on 18th June 2016 in Page. Can the assertion of Mr. Satyendra Garg, Joint secretary (MHA) for North East as appeared in local media on 5.7.2016 who said that ‘this talk (the dialogue) will take forward’ contain credence?
The third controversy is that “Another official” said that ‘the insurgent group had gone back on its demand for full sovereignty’ as per Nagaland Page dated 27.6.2016. If this is at all true, the cornerstone of the 3rd August 2015 Framework is displaced. In my layman’s understanding, there is no ambiguity as for the Framework accord is concerned that everything was within the ambit of the Indian Constitution. In fact, so long as the GOI sticks to its ground that sovereignty and integration are not negotiable, no accord, pact or framework can be so framed outside the Constitution of India. Sovereignty is the Naga aspiration but the 3rd August Framework cannot fetch sovereignty and there seems to be paradigm shift relating to demand as one reads between the lines.
In the midst of drafting this brief analysis, sad news came that one of the tallest leaders of our time Lt. Isak Chishi Swu has passed away. It is mourning period, and I have no ulterior motive to rub salt to the injury. Yet, the situation demands timely analysis and introspection. And so the fourth is the press item published by Nagaland Page on 24.6.2016 in which the onus was virtually passed onto Chairman, NSCN(IM) Lt. Isak Chishi Swu. Let me quote, ‘The final agreement between the centre and the NSCN(IM) remains uncertain as the condition of the outfit’s chairman, Isak Chishi Swu, is deteriorating’ and continues to say that ‘till he recovers, the agreement will not be finalized’. Unfortunately, the leader has just passed away leaving Naga people behind in total disarray. Having understood the language, I am perplexed as to how NSCN(IM) has made the responsibility so sacrosanct that Lt. Isak alone to be the exclusive signatory of that framework. Now the question is, as the leader has gone, will the framework be buried with him? Will it be wrong to understand this statement that the percentage of failure is higher than the possibility?
Should the negotiation fail, Nagas will get a chance to learn lessons. That our vindictiveness, un-forgiveness, pride, selfishness, greed, ego, dishonesty, blame game and lack of patriotism do us part from Naga unity. Therefore, our disunity will be our enemy number one today and it will remain so tomorrow. That no such strategy as sectional dialogue with GOI with the ground reality of immense group-ism politics at home will be hardly taken seriously by counterpart or adversaries. That no amount of altar calls for unity with stern internal resolves for ‘home coming’ will ever unite the Nagas. That no amount of high profile and bombastic rhetorics or deceptive manoeuvres can place the Nagas in an honourable and respectable position.
In the event of the failure of the said negotiation, the Nagas may have to realize that the philosophy of United we lost, divided we gained has miserably placed us in dire straits. To those who (inclusive of all sections) sufficiently fished out of years of troubled waters, hording sufficient wealth, both moveable and immoveable, in the name of Naga nationalism, such flop may not necessarily mean anything. May be, for them dreams are fulfilled. May be, for them solution is not desirable but trouble is what they want as their business is not viable in the atmosphere of genuine peace. May be to them the chaotic situation is considered their sovereignty.
Nevertheless, what matters are the plight of the common man and the future of the posterity. Our present day political movement has made the poorer section of our people suffered excessively. The kind of menace inflicted on the masses is never the mandated modus operandi for nationalism.
The conscientious elite section of Nagas are required to come together to bail out the suffering mass from the mess.
