Why the accord does not go well?

Sources in the security establishment say the enthusiasm with which the framework agreement was announced led to unreasonable expectations of an imminent Accord.

 

“The Naga issue is very complex, and the NSCN(IM) is in a delicate position. It is led by a Tangkhul from Manipur, for whom it is difficult to abandon the demand for a Greater Nagalim. But India cannot accept that demand, and a middle path has to be found, which may take some time,” a senior officer said.

 

Sources said there was no way the government would accept a separate constitution for Nagaland. “This was never under discussion. There was, indeed, an opinion that the flag could be given. But that went off the table after the decisions of August 5, 2019 in Kashmir, when the region’s flag was taken away,” another official said.

 

Ravi’s open criticism made the NSCN(IM) publicly harden its position, officials said. “There was already pressure on the NSCN(IM) because of NIA cases against its members… There was no need to openly chide them. You can’t be the good cop as well as the bad cop as a negotiator,” a Home Ministry official said.

 

The move to appoint Ravi as Governor too, did not go down well with the IM. And Ravi’s enthusiasm in matters of governance was taken by the state government as interference.

Way Forward

The government has roped in former IB officer Mishra as the new pointsperson for talks. Mishra met some representatives of IM this week, after Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Rio met Muivah and others. Mishra, who sources say could be formally appointed the new interlocutor, is known to be a quiet worker, and has been talking to Naga groups since January 2020.

 

“It is important to understand that there cannot be an accord without the NSCN(IM). It continues to get young recruits and wields considerable influence in the region. The idea is to slowly bring them to accept what India can give,” a senior officer said.

 

One of Mishra’s tasks would also be to delicately close the gap between the IM and NNPGs, which shared a good relationship with Ravi. Sources in the NNPGs have said they are not averse to working with Mishra; however, they have pointed to the “ambiguity” of his role since, they argue, following the conclusion of the talks on October 31, 2019, “there is no longer a need for an interlocutor”.

 

Some demands that need ironing out include one for a bicameral Assembly with at least 40 nominated members representing different tribes; absorption of cadres as local armed forces or in the Indian paramilitary; setting up of autonomous councils in Naga-dominated areas of neighbouring states; and the use of the Naga flag for at least customary events.

When Naga movement started ?

Pre-independence phase:

 

• The Naga Hills became part of British India in 1881.
• In 1918, the Naga Club was formed to bring unity among the Naga tribes.
• Since 1929, the Naga club has advocated for complete autonomy for the Nagas and had also petitioned the Simon Commission in 1929 to leave the Naga inhabited territories alone and not to club it with the larger Indian Territory.
• The Naga club metamorphosed into the Naga National Council (NNC) in 1946. Under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the NNC declared Nagaland as an independent State on August 14, 1947, and conducted a referendum in May 1951 to claim support for a “sovereign Nagaland”.
• In June 1947, Assam Governor Sir Akbar Hydari signed the Nine-Point Agreement with the moderates in the NNC but Phizo rejected it outright.

Post-independence phase:

• In March 1952, Phizo formed the underground Naga Federal Government (NFG) and the Naga Federal Army.
• The government of India sent in the Army to crush the insurgency and, in 1958, enacted the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.
• A 16-point Agreement with the Naga People’s Convention (moderate faction) followed in July 1960 leading to the creation of Nagaland in December 1963.
• In April 1964, a Peace Mission was formed for an agreement on suspension of operations with the NNC, but it was abandoned in 1967 after six rounds of talks.
• The Shillong Accord of 1975 followed, under which a section of NNC and NFG agreed to give up arms. A group of 140 members led by Mr. Muivah, who was in China then, refused to accept the Shillong Accord and formed the NSCN in 1980. The outfit split in 1988 with one faction led by Mr. Muivah and the other by the Myanmar-based Khaplang.
• The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) (NSCN-IM) — one of the largest Naga groups – signed a ceasefire agreement with the Centre in 1997.

Latest developments:

• A framework agreement was signed in 2015. Also known as the Nagaland Peace Accord, it was signed between the Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), to end the insurgency in the state of Nagaland.
• An agreement on the political parameters of the settlement was worked out with the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), in 2017.
• The peace talks between the Government of India and the NSCN-IM could not yield a peace agreement by October 31 2019, the government’s deadline for concluding an accord. The negotiations seemed to have reached a stalemate.

Where Naga insurgency affects the Centre?

Defying a lasting solution:Rooted in the politics of sub-nationalism, complexities of regional geopolitics and the evolving dynamics of counterinsurgency tactics, the Naga insurgency has defied a lasting solution.The much-touted peace accord is yet to be achieved, despite the Centre’s push to have had it concluded by 2019. The Naga insurgency has evolved into a complex problem with political, social and economic ramifications.

Suffering for the general populace: The Naga insurgency has seen violent splits, ugly divisive tribalism, fratricidal feuds and untold sufferings for the general populace.

Law and order situation:m: The law and order is a major area of concern in the state with armed gangs who question the sovereignty and integrity of the nation wielding considerable influence.

Culture of extortion: The armed gangs have been engaging in extortion and siphoning off funds meant for development work. These illegal collections by armed groups have been an issue for several years.The organised armed gangs run their own parallel ‘tax collection’ regimes. Extortions in the name of taxes have been a thorny facet of the Naga issue.

External support factor: India’s adversaries (China and Pakistan) have provided the Naga insurgents with vital external support at one point in time and this threat of external aid amounts to a major challenge to India’s internal security.

Impediments to Peace settlement:

Non-negotiable aspects for India: Recognition of Naga sovereignty, integration of all Naga-speaking areas into a greater Nagaland, a separate constitution and a separate flag are demands that the Indian Government may find difficult to fulfil. The Indian Government is willing to allow for regional autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution. Non-flexibility of the NSCN-IM on the issue of a separate Naga national flag and Naga Yezhabo (constitution) have delayed the peace settlement.

Internal divisions among Naga groups: Internal divisions in the Naga society threatens to delay a final agreement. While the NNPGs want a solution for Nagas within Nagaland, the NSCN-IM seeks integration of Naga-inhabited areas beyond the geographical boundary of Nagaland. Also, other Naga groups namely the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) have already promised a settlement with or without the NSCN (IM).

Distrust: Realising that the NSCN (IM) cannot be the sole representative of the Nagas, in 2017 other Naga underground factions were also brought to the negotiating table, lowering the prestige of the NSCN (IM). Today there are seven of these factions under an umbrella organisation, the Naga National Political Groups (NNPG), taking part in the negotiations. The Central government’s move to bring in other Naga armed groups on board the peace talks, though well-intentioned, had a negative effect on the process. It bred suspicion about Delhi exploiting divisions within the Nagas on tribal and geopolitical lines.

Speculation: Speculation among the Naga society is high that the Central government may renege on the principles of “shared sovereignty” for co-existing as two separate identities, as was stated in the framework agreement. This has been fuelled by the nationalism driven policies of the Centre like the abrogation of Article 370 and the call for “one nation, one constitution”.

Opposition by neighbouring states: The demands for greater Nagaland or Nagalim from the NSCN-IM is bound to lead to a redrawing of the state boundaries in the northeast. The territorial integrity of the neighbouring states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur are bound to be affected and hence they are wary of a peace settlement. Manipur has issued a strong statement against any move which would compromise its territorial integrity.

‘Greater Nagaland’ or Nagalim — includes apart from the present-day state of Nagaland, other Naga-dominated areas in neighbouring Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Myanmar.

Latest irritant:

 

A letter written by the Governor to the CM of Nagaland has become the latest irritant between the NSCN-IM and the government. The Governor had expressed anguish over the culture of extortion and the collapse of the general law and order situation in Nagaland.

In its response, the insurgent National Socialist Council of Nagalim-Isak Muivah (NSCN-IM) had said the group was only engaged in collecting taxes and called for the removal of the interlocutor from further negotiations.

Who are Nagas?

Nagas are a hill people who are estimated to number about 2.5 million (1.8 million in Nagaland, 0.6 million in Manipur and 0.1 million in Arunachal states) and living in the remote and mountainous country between the Indian state of Assam and Burma. There are also Naga groups in Burma. The Nagas are not a single tribe, but an ethnic community that comprises several tribes who live in the state of Nagaland and its neighbourhood. Nagas belong to the Indo-Mongoloid Family. There are nineteen major Naga tribes, namely, Aos, Angamis, Changs, Chakesang, Kabuis, Kacharis, Khain-Mangas, Konyaks, Kukis, Lothas (Lothas), Maos, Mikirs, Phoms, Rengmas, Sangtams, Semas, Tankhuls, Yamchumgar and Zeeliang.

Shillong Accord (1975): A peace accord was signed in Shillong in which the NNC leadership agreed to give up arms. However, several leaders refused to accept the agreement, which led to the split of NNC.

Ceasefire Agreement (1997): The NSCN-IM signed a ceasefire agreement with the government to stop attacks on Indian armed forces. In return, the government would stop all counter-insurgency offensive operations.

Framework Agreement (2015): In this agreement, the Government of India recognised the unique history, culture and position of the Nagas and their sentiments and aspirations.

Recently, the State government decided to prepare the Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland but later due to pressure from various fractions, the decision was put on hold.

Background of Naga Insurgency:

• The Naga Hills became part of British India in 1881.
• The effort to bring scattered Naga tribes together resulted in the formation of the Naga Club in 1918.
• The club aroused a sense of Naga nationalism.
• The club metamorphosed into the Naga National Council (NNC) in 1946.
• Under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the NNC declared Nagaland as an independent State on 14th August, 1947, and conducted a “referendum” in May 1951 to claim that 99.9% of the Nagas supported a “sovereign Nagaland”.
• Nagaland achieved statehood in December 1963. Nagaland was formed out of the Naga Hills district of Assam and the then North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) province (now Arunachal Pradesh).
• In 1975, under the Shillong Accord, some factions of NNC and NFG (Naga Federal Government) agreed to give up arms.
• A group of about 140 members led by Thuingaleng Muivah, who was at that time in China, refused to accept the Shillong Accord and formed the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980.
• In 1988, the NSCN split into NSCN (IM) and NSCN (K) after a violent clash.
• While the NNC began to fade away, and Phizo died in London in 1991, the NSCN (IM) came to be seen as the “mother of all insurgencies” in the region.

How did things go wrong?

Why the IM hardened its stance has never been made public. Sources in the security establishment say things started to go sour after Ravi realised that the NSCN(IM) and the Indian government differed in their understanding of the framework agreement. The group was insistent on a Naga constitution, and was pushing for a Greater Nagalim stretching beyond the boundaries of the present Nagaland state.

 

Naga sources, however, say that during the talks, the IM had softened its stance on the demand for a separate flag and constitution. Sources say even the various competencies of the accord had been agreed upon, although a few bones of contention remained.

 

In November 2017, Ravi signed an agreement with seven groups who had come together under the banner of the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), which did not include the NSCN (IM). The IM, which considers itself the principal representative of Naga aspirations, has been a rival of many of the NNPG groups. In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2020, the IM accused Ravi of attempting to “segregate the Naga civil society”.

 

After becoming Nagaland Governor in 2019, Ravi expressed frustration at the delay in concluding the deal. In October 2019, after talks with Naga society representatives, Ravi said the NSCN (IM) had “adopted a procrastinating attitude to delay the settlement” by raising the “contentious symbolic issues of separate Naga national flag and constitution”. A mutually agreed draft comprehensive settlement was ready to be signed, he said.

 

Ravi wrote a scathing letter to Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio, calling the NSCN(IM) an “armed gang”, and accused it of running a “parallel government” and engaging in extortion.

 

In response, the NSCN(IM) hardened its position, saying the Naga flag and constitution were non-negotiable. It claimed the framework agreement included the idea of unification of all Naga inhabited areas in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur. It accused Ravi of twisting the document by deleting key words that suggested Nagaland would co-exist with India as a sovereign.

 

Ravi rejected the demand for a separate flag and constitution outright, and warned that “any misadventure to disintegrate this great nation shall not be tolerated”. The IM responded by calling Ravi’s actions “mischief”, and demanding his ouster. Ravi, meanwhile, continued to engage with the other Naga groups, and declared that the Accord would be signed with or without the NSCN(IM).