|
THE NATION: NAGA CEASE-FIRE
Peace On A Short Fuse
The Government has gone back on its agreement with
the NSCN, angering the group. Will the truce hold?
By Lakshmi Iyer
|
|
|
| |
CHIEFS: Muivah (left) and Swu
in Amsterdam |
When the Rajya Sabha
recently endorsed the proclamation of President's rule in Manipur, there
was a solitary voice that agonised over the Government's decision to once
again renege on its cease-fire agreement with the National Socialist Council
of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah). "While you review the cease-fire, please
do consider the fallout also ... because I believe there is no cause (for
review)," pleaded Swaraj Kaushal.
Kaushal was speaking on behalf of the Nagas
against limiting the cease-fire to Nagaland under pressure from Manipur.
The Naga insurgency problem lay not in Nagaland but in the hill districts
of Manipur. There could not be a cease-fire with the ultra group if there
was no cease-fire in Manipur, he argued. Kaushal is no ordinary member
of Parliament. He was the government's interlocutor with the NSCN(I-M)
between 1998 and 1999 , and had resigned after the government failed to
honour the commitments he had made to the insurgent outfit.
The former Mizoram governor went on to share
a secret with the members. During his negotiations, not once did the NSCN(I-M)
raise the demand for Greater Nagaland, Kaushal said. He debunked the popular
misgivings about the concept of Nagalim. "Greater Nagaland is not
an antinational demand. It may be wrong but it is certainly not antinational.
When the Punjab chief minister says Chandigarh should be part of Punjab
is it an antinational demand?" Kaushal's defence of the Naga demand
was drowned in the usual parliamentary interruptions. His arguments were
convincing. But they had come a little too late and had few takers.
|
|
|
|
NO GO: Naga women in Manipur march in support of the cease-fire.
Naga bodies have called bandhs against limiting the truce.
|
|
A couple of days ahead of the monsoon session
of Parliament, the Government took the risk of throwing the gains of the
cease-fire to the winds. It inked out the "without territorial limits"
clause from its cease-fire agreement with the oldest insurgent group in
the Northeast. Its interlocutor K. Padmanabhaiah and Intelligence Bureau
Director K.P. Singh hot-footed it to Amsterdam to tell NSCN leaders Isak
Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah that the Government could not honour the pact
made on June 14 in the face of Manipur's month-long violent street protests
against it.
The Government was lucky. The Naga leaders took
the bad news in their stride. This was not the first time in the last
four years of the cease-fire pact that the Government had failed to keep
its word. The issue of a cease-fire without territorial limits had been
hanging fire since 1997. The NSCN leaders appreciated the fact that at
least this time round, the Government had agreed in principle to its demand.
It could not honour its commitment because of extraneous reasons. "They
first complained about cease-fire violations by the security forces. They
also agreed in principle to the dropping of the "without territorial
limits" clause but did not want any public announcement," says
a Home Ministry official.
The Government, of course, could not refrain
from making an announcement. It had to restore normalcy in Manipur. At
the end of the meeting with chief ministers of the Northeastern states
Union Home Minister L.K. Advani declared that the Government had decided
to roll back the cease-fire pact with the Naga group.
The announcement provoked a terse denial from
the NSCN(I-M). "In the talks in Amsterdam, nothing has been finalised
on the proposal raised from the Indian side. The necessity of keeping
the rampant activities of the Indian armed forces under effective control
was first and foremost. Of course, both sides believed that better understanding
could certainly be arrived at in the course of talks. There is practically
no point in the Government making any announcement beyond this understanding."
It dubbed any statement or declaration made by the Home Ministry as unfounded
and unacceptable to the Nagas.
The Naga response confused the Northeastern
states. If the amendment to the truce pact as announced by Advani was
not acceptable to the NSCN (I-M) would it retreat to the jungles? Was
it the end of peace in the region? Would the security forces have to resume
anti-insurgency operations? Fears of NSCN's return to violence worried
Manipur's leaders the most. Imphal politicians, who were critical of keeping
the state Assembly in suspended animation, no longer minded the Government's
decision to dissolve the House.
"Elections should not be held soon,"
says former chief minister Radha Binod Koijam. "If elections are
held in the next six months, insurgents themselves will become people's
representatives. President's rule should continue at least for a year".
He feels the Centre should use the opportunity to combat the ultras and
put the finances of the state in order, something which the representative
governments have not been able to do so far.
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
