Unless there is a better definition than described here, Negotiation means “discussion that take place between people who have different interests, especially in business, politics or international affairs in order for them to be able to come to an agreement about something, solve a problem or make arrangements”. Again unless there is a better definition than described here, Bargain means “an agreement between two people or groups especially in business in which they agree what each of them will do, pay or receive”. Referring the dictionary meaning of ‘Negotiation’ and ‘Bargain’ for digestion need not be misconstrued as an attempt to demean the current political talk to scholastic debate but for some reasonable observation that the culminating talk between the two parties appear to have scaled down from negotiation to bargaining point. Negotiation and bargain are synonymous term but they differ in degree and our concern is about the level of settlement reached. Indeed negotiation in real sense started between GOI and NSCN(IM) on mutually agreed three principles: talk in a third country, third party mediation and unconditional talk. Yet when that principle was abrogated neither of the two bothered so much and we are not the competent authority to question the why and how of such unexplained compromise. It may sound bitter but true; we have failed on the negotiation front, we are simply bargaining and seemingly in Modi’s ‘fixed price’ shop.The principle ground for negotiation was spelled out by the NSCN (IM) and the negotiation point must have been clear – Naga Sovereignty and Naga Integration. But tiring and boring discussion from either side year after year, round after round must have pushed them down to a level of what one can get and the other can give. Fortunately or unfortunately Modi hasten to signed the framework agreement, some say due to the uncertainty of the health condition of Issak. But Modi’s India is no more Mahatma’s India who said Nagas have the right to be independent or Nehru’s India who placed Nagaland under External Affairs Ministry up to 1972 or Indira’s India who offered semi independent Bhutan-like status. We are yet to be convinced whether Modi also shares the concept of shared-sovereign of the IM and if so whether it is in the context of the Indian federal structure of Union List and State List or in the like of special provision under Art 371 (A) or he is speaking in the manner Naga understands sovereignty. Therefore, the puzzling question remains whether the popularized ‘shared-sovereign’ means the same thing or differently with ‘sovereignty’ of the Nagas. I understand otherwise. They sound like negotiation and bargain.
We cannot totally blame the collective leadership if they have failed on the negotiation front considering the harsh reality that Naga Sovereignty would mean a very expensive takeaway from India and Naga Integration a huge takeaway from the neighboring states. Also when one group talks of integration with Nagaland the other group talks of alternative arrangement outside Manipur, when one group wants separate solution for Nagaland the other group of Nagaland wants a separate state and yet another group for separate solution in Myanmar. Be it regarded insignificant or irrelevant at this moment all these groups equally represent the Nagas in the way they should and serious thought need to be given whether their existence can be easily write-off. Given this odd situation the slogan of sovereignty or integration seems to be nothing short of “opium of the mass”. Nonetheless the collective leadership cannot be totally absolved if they are misleading the Nagas and if the highly proclaimed shared-sovereign turns out to be a carbon copy of constitutional provision or if integration is not holistic but integration only of other Nagas in Nagaland State.
Speculative, hypothetical or even hallucination one may say but it is just natural that till such time the hidden agenda is revealed to the anxious people this exercise of possibility will continue to the last. I maybe wrong but I cannot be blamed and even if I am wrong my speculation is not likely to dissuade the terms of agreement. It is just that what does not concern me may not be my business but what concerns me I have all the rights as others have, precisely the responsibility to express and also convey the unspoken feelings of so so many people who, unfortunately cannot and/or are deprived of that opportunity.
That negotiation point has been compromised to bargaining level maybe put this way. Negotiation went on to the extent of agreeing to have an agreement but thereafter, the demand in the agreement, whatever maybe there, is being submitted or received in bargaining nature. Sovereignty or even integration (not integration within Nagaland) is certainly a compromised issue; else what is the reason of hesitation in proving it with convincing evidence or disproving the contradictory claim of GOI that territorial integrity of neighboring states will remain intact? Who is fooling who? Or is the integration, reiterated every now and then an internal thing (say assimilation) within Nagaland, reason for which it cannot be disclosed to people especially of Nagaland till the settlement is legalized or constitutionalized? Solution, whichever way it comes will not be without sacrifice somewhere somewhere. The first casualty likely will be Nagaland State; something good will come but certainly not without price. Perhaps Nagas from Arunachal Pradesh will be accommodated and considering the quiet attention given to ENPO by GOI, they too may reap some benefit but most of all the Nagas of Manipur State may claim the lion share. What they deserve they may get but why at the expense of Nagaland. There are people who say Nagaland is the outcome of Naga movement and so it does not belong to the Nagas of the State alone. In other words it is ‘no man’s land’ and any Naga near and far has a legitimate right to own it. And if there will be no integration and Nagaland will remain as it is, why NAGALIM? India having gone through the experience of British ‘divide and rule’ and once opposed it tooth and nail, appears to be applying the same yardstick to the Naga situation. Keep the Nagas divided and they will relieve the headache of GOI by fighting amongst themselves. Rather finish the solution and let them finish themselves. So said again, solution bargained will have its own price. And Nagaland will pay.
