| |
STATES: MANIPUR
Breach Of Trust
The politics has
not ceased. In Delhi, the BJP and Samata Party have been viewing each
other with suspicion. If the BJP linked trouble in Imphal to Samata leader
Radhabinod Koijam, who was ousted as chief minister less than four months
into his term, the Samata frowned upon the Union Home Ministry's efforts
to install a popular government in the state.
 |
 |
|
August 14, 1947
Naga National Council declares independence outside India or Pakistan.
May 16, 1951
NNC organises plebiscite in Naga areas; claims 99.9 per cent
voted for independence.
March 22, 1956
NNC establishes federal government of Nagaland under Phizo with
an armed wing.
September 6, 1964
Cease-fire signed between government of India and federal government
of Nagaland.
November 11, 1975
Shillong Accord signed. Naga representatives accept Indian Constitution.
October, 1975
Isak Swu and Muivah oppose Shillong Accord. NNC splits.
January, 1980
NSCN formed under Swu, Muivah to fight for independent Nagaland.
July 25, 1997
Cease-fire declared for a period of three months initially.
|
That may be easier said than done considering
the popularity politicians seem to be enjoying in Imphal at present. With
bureaucrats doing a shade better in the popularity stakes, the blame game
is on. Predictably, K. Padmanabhiah, the Centre's chief interlocutor with
NSCN(I-M), is the cynosure of attention. He succumbed to pressure from
the ultras, say Home Ministry officials. "The NSCN(I-M) didn't trust
him. He tried to win them over by conceding to their long-pending demand.
He failed to get anything in return," says a senior official.
The issue of a cease-fire without territorial
limits has dogged the peace process ever since it was initiated in 1997.
The NSCN(I-M) claims Delhi offered a truce in the first round of talks
then without setting territorial limits. Then prime minister I.K. Gujral
reneged on it by making a statement in Parliament limiting the cease-fire
to Nagaland, they allege. However, both Gujral and former Union home secretary
N.N. Vohra who led the peace talks at the time both deny this. "The
NSCN(I-M) was asking for it but we could not agree as both Nagaland and
Manipur opposed it," says Vohra. This time too Koijam, who was chief
minister of Manipur at the time Vajpayee held consultations with chief
ministers of the north-eastern states, says he had opposed the cease-fire
proposal.
Home Ministry officials now say the extension
was a fait accompli. "Two years ago when the cease-fire was extended
it was specified it would be against the NSCN(I-M) as an organisation.
This meant wherever the group existed. The armed forces had an informal
truce in Manipur's hill districts between 1999-2000," says a Home
Ministry official.
 |
|
MOB RAGE: Police battle protesters
|
The cease-fire has its supporters in other places
as well. Mizoram Chief Minister Zoramthanga, who was sent to Bangkok as
Delhi's emissary to restart the peace process last year, is not sure Manipur's
fears of being carved up are justified. "The NSCN(I-M) is serious
about peace. So is Delhi. Cease-fire without territorial limits is about
creating an atmosphere conducive to peace," he says. Former army
chief and Rajya Sabha member General Shankar Roy Choudhury, who is credited
with preparing the ground for dialogue in 1996, says "I had reccomended
a cease-fire against the NSCN(I-M) in the entire region."
In his defence, Padmanabhiah says he gave nothing
away. "We have told the rebel leadership in no uncertain terms that
the extension of the truce jurisdiction and the demands cannot be linked,"
he says. Vajpayee was more categorical: "There will be no change
at all in the borders of Manipur or any other state". The clarifications
came a little late in the day.
Vajpayee's comment suggest there will be no
redrawing of state borders in the north-east. This means the NSCN(I-M)
dream of a Greater Nagalim can never be conceded by Delhi. A war-weary
Muivah, released from a Bangkok jail in September last year, has tacitly
acknowledged this. In agreeing to talks with the Centre the rebel group
has shown it may be prepared to let go of its demand for independence.
But that has not pacified the sceptics, some
of whom have other, completely unrelated, scores to settle with Delhi.
|
|