States: Nagaland: Gunning for Peace

As Naga factors thrash out contentious issues before a final settlement with the Government, the bloody insurgenc in the state may become a thing of the past.

Tired of fighting: Muivah and Swa at the consultative body meeting.

The peace process in troubled Nagaland has come close to completion in the past, but never quite got there. Last week, Nagaland came closer to a date with history. All that the Nagas hope is that history doesn't repeat itself. In 1975, after signing the Shillong Accord, the secessionist Naga National Council leader A.Z. Phizo accepted the Indian Constitution unconditionally on behalf of the Nagas. Only to find that he did not have the mandate to do so.

Isak Chisi Swu and Thuenglang Muivah, two of the men who challenged Phizo's mandate, have led a life in exile since just before the Shillong Accord. Orchestrating the bloodiest and most sustained insurgency in the North-east for the past 25 years. But last month, they were back in Nagaland: to seek a mandate of their own.

At 70 and 68, Swu and Muivah -- leaders of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN-Isak-Muivah), which is now engaged in peace talks with the Government -- find themselves in a situation very similar to Phizo's. The prolonged guerrilla war seems to have taken its toll. In short, they would like to seize the "opportunity" that is now on offer. The question that remains, as it did in Phizo's case, is: do they have the mandate to speak on behalf of all Nagas?

Between May 31 and June 2 they tried to find out. The meeting of the "consultative body" -- or the larger Naga family -- that was organised on these days had among invitees prominent Nagas from such organisations as the Naga Hoho (the apex Naga tribal body), the Naga Council, the Church and a representatives from various Naga-inhabited areas. It was the first time that the NSCN brass had exposed itself to the public at large. "The idea was to sound us out and then try and decide what line to take in the negotiations with the Indian Government," says Hekebe Achumi, a member of the Naga Hoho.

REMAINING HURDLES

ť The lack of Naga unity is something that the NSCN brass is still grappling with. They agree that unity must come first, the peace settlement later. Ever since the NSCN split in 1988, the Isak-Muivah faction has been waging a fierce battle with its erstwhile comrade Khaplang's NSCN (K).
ť The other crucial issue is sovereignty. Since the plebiscite of 1951, a section of the Nagas has been fighting a seemingly endless guerrilla war. Though the NSCN-IM says it's not seeking independence, anything short of sovereignty is unacceptable to its cadres.
ť The Naga leadership is firm on adding "all contiguous Naga-dominated areas" to Nagaland. These include districts in Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. It's an issue that could bog down the peace process.

Peace talks between the NSCN-IM and the Union Government have been going on since P.V. Narasimha Rao's tenure. H.D. Deve Gowda and Atal Bihari Vajpayee have subsequently met Swu and Muivah. The last round of talks were held in Amsterdam in March. In fact, the NSCN claims that Prime Minister Vajpayee is so keen to solve the Naga crisis that he is willing to amend the Constitution if it throws up an acceptable solution. But the "consultative body" discussed several hurdles on the way to a final settlement:

The first is the lack of Naga unity. At one time, Swu and Muivah fought alongside S.S. Khaplang, a Myanmarese Naga. But in 1988, the nscn split into two. Since then, the two groups have fought each other more fiercely than with the security forces. Khaplang, who heads the NSCN(K), has had no part in the peace negotiations. But as a "gesture of goodwill", the NSCN-IM has offered a 45-day "amnesty" to all those "misguided youth" (who are with Khaplang) to come and join their faction.

The second crucial issue is of sovereignty. Ever since the plebiscite in Naga-dominated areas in 1951 which overwhelmingly voted for independence from India, a section of the Nagas have been fighting a seemingly endless guerrilla war. But Swu and Muivah's tone as they've gone back to the people has been distinctly conciliatory. "We do not demand sovereignty, what we expect is the recognition of the rights of the Nagas," says Swu. At the negotiating table, that may be a reasonable position. On the ground, however, the realities within the NSCN may be different. For the cadre, and indeed even the second-rung leadership, anything short of sovereignty seems unacceptable. The question is how much control the two top leaders have over the rest of the band.

The third point is that of territory. The leadership is firm on adding "all contiguous Naga-dominated areas" to the present boundaries of Nagaland which were demarcated when it became a state in 1963. The problem is, these territories include four northern districts of neighbouring Manipur, parts of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. In Manipur, where Muivah originally comes from, there has already been a storm over the question of territorial integrity.

It's an issue over which the ongoing peace process could actually collapse. So what happens then? "We go back to our guns," says Muivah. For now, the NSCN-IM has an ace in its hand that it can show the people of Nagaland: the fact that they have gone on so far in peace negotiations, something rival insurgent groups have failed to do. For now, that is better than a gun up the sleeve.