When the Centre abrogated Article 370 on August 5, tremors were felt in the northeast. The Naga peace talks, which seemed to be nearing a resolution, were again at a crossroads. The question was: If the government had taken away Jammu and Kashmir's flag and constitution, why would it let the Naga groups have the same?
The Centre, which had signed a framework agreement with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) in 2015, had said that it would sign the peace accord with or without the NSCN(IM), on October 31. The Centre had also been negotiating with seven Naga organisations, together called the Naga National Political Groups.
However, on the day of the deadline, R.N. Ravi, the Centre-appointed interlocutor for the Naga peace process, said that the NSCN(IM) had come on board, but discussions would continue. No formal accord was signed.
The Modi government showed restraint by not signing a deal without the NSCN(IM), especially as the latter has posted almost 5,000 troops across Nagaland, Manipur and parts of Arunachal Pradesh.
“The deal would be signed together. We will not divide the Naga groups,” said a top Central government official. Apparently, Modi had stepped in and asked Home Minister Amit Shah to give the NSCN(IM) more time.
Moreover, unlike in Kashmir, where separatists are openly critical of the Indian government, NSCN(IM) chief Thuingaleng Muivah shares a personal rapport with Modi. “Muivah resisted from doing that,” said Lusiano Konyak, a college professor in Kohima. “But it is also bad to stretch the issue further. It is not at all a solution.”
The influential Baptist church also played its part in the mediation, as did Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio, who is supposedly close to the NSCN(IM).
The issue, however, is far from settled. Said a top NSCN(IM) leader: “No permanent solution has been found. Our demands remain. We will talk more.”
The Naga Hoho, which promotes unity among all Naga groups, said it would not ratify a deal which does not allow an official flag and a separate constitution. H.K. Zhimomi, president of the Naga Hoho, told THE WEEK: “The Government of India would like to end the talks immediately without addressing core issues. The people of Nagaland would not accept that and are ready to face any consequence. The revolution will continue.”
The NSCN(IM) had initiated talks with the Indian government in 1997, and has the backing of most Naga organisations. In fact, in 2005, the Naga Hoho, along with the church and all major civil society groups, had authorised the NSCN(IM) to talk to the Indian government on behalf of the Nagas.
However, recently, several members of the NSCN(IM) had joined the NNPG, citing its unnecessary stubbornness. This included Hukavi Yeputhomi, the former home minister of the NSCN(IM) “government” in Nagaland.
Now, as talks drag on, the situation in Nagaland is tense. Army helicopters are doing sorties. The Army's Eastern Command is meeting senior officers in different part of the northeast and the Nagaland government has cancelled leave of its employees. So, is the situation that urgent? “Yes. That is what has come from Delhi,” said an officer in Chief Minister Rio’s office.
Said Akum Naga, vice president of the Business Association of Nagaland: “We are afraid of the situation. The Indian government might enforce a clampdown here. People are spreading rumours on social media. The Indian government would make a great mistake if it compares Nagaland with Kashmir.”
Sources said that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh had been monitoring the peace talks closely and was in no mood to accept the NSCN(IM)'s demands. In July, Prime Minister Modi had reportedly asked Ravi, who was made governor of Nagaland in July, to close the deal in three months.
In May 2018, in an interview with THE WEEK, Alezo Venuh, chief of NSCN (Unification) and coordinator of the NNPG's political dialogue group, said, “The Government of India has clearly mentioned that sovereignty will not be considered and we are not pressing for it.”
The NSCN(IM), however, renewed its demand for a flag and separate constitution soon after the Centre removed Article 370. It also said that it could secede from India if its demands were not met.
When Ravi conveyed this to Modi and Shah, they rejected all such suggestions. A top source in the Union government told THE WEEK: “By making him (Ravi) the governor, the Centre has empowered him to take the state government on board and take all security measures to face the implications of any hard decision.”
Ravi, himself a former Intelligence Bureau officer, coordinated with the IB and the Research and Analysis Wing to assess the implications of the possible end to the talks. He issued a statement that said, “There cannot be endless talks under the shadow of a gun and [there is] no question of granting a flag and a constitution.”
Shah is monitoring the situation along with National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, Ravi and Lt Gen (retd) Shokin Chauhan, chairman of the Ceasefire Monitoring Group (CFMG).
Government sources told THE WEEK that Modi and Shah were angry after the NSCN(IM) allegedly killed an MLA in Arunachal Pradesh along with his family and security personnel, on May 21. Tirong Aboh was a member of the National People’s Party (NPP), a BJP ally.
Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma, the NPP president, asked Modi to take action. Importantly, the ceasefire agreement of 1997 was limited to Nagaland; the NSCN (IM) still indulges in insurgent activities in Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
After Aboh's death, the Union government decided that the peace talks would continue on India's terms and not on those of the NSCN(IM). The Modi government had hinted at this through its actions in Kashmir.
There were other reasons that encouraged Delhi to talk tough against the NSCN(IM). First, India had helped Myanmar flush out terrorists from camps on the India-Myanmar border. This eventually broke NSCN (Khaplang), the second biggest insurgent group after NSCN(IM). Second, the NNPG was willing to sign a deal as soon as possible and, third, the clear mandate that the Modi government received in the general elections.
However, on October 20, NSCN (K, Yung Aung) attacked the Assam Rifles camp in Mon district of Nagaland, injuring some jawans. This dented the claim that the border was clear of militants.
Ravi had reportedly called powerful civil society groups like the Naga Hoho, the United Naga Council (UNC), several tribes in Nagaland and the Nagaland Baptist Church Council for a discussion on October 15. For the first time church leaders were part of the peace talks.
While some tribes attended the meeting, the Naga Hoho, the UNC and all other civil society organisations skipped it. The general secretary of the Nagaland Baptist Church Council, Rev Dr Zelhou Keyho, said he asked Ravi why the prime civil society groups did not come. “He told me they were not invited and he instead sought churches' support to find solutions,” Keyho told THE WEEK.
NSCN(IM) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah
“The governor told us that based on the 2015 framework agreement, Nagas would have full control of natural resources, they would have more Lok Sabha seats, there would be an upper house in the state assembly and the total number of MLAs would be increased from 60 to 90. He said Rajya Sabha representation would also be increased in Nagaland and there would be regular delimitation to give more representation to Nagaland. However, he did not [provide] details.”
Keyho said Nagaland would likely get some customary laws like in the Mizo Accord. “This is what the Indian government would give by accepting the unique history of Nagaland,” he said. “But the NSCN (IM) thinks otherwise.”
He said that Ravi had asked the church to help “break the logjam” and it had agreed. About the NSCN(IM), he said: “We are not against it. But we are also not saying we will never be part of India. Our role is to bring peace.”
Ravi had said that the 2015 framework agreement did not mention sovereignty or a special flag. But the NSCN(IM) said such demands were part of the 1997 ceasefire agreement. Said Zhimomi: “We are under forced occupation by India. They must understand that Kashmir was part of India because of an agreement between the Indian government and the king (Hari Singh). But for Nagaland nothing similar exists. Article 370 was temporary, Article 371 is not.”
Milan Shimray, general secretary of United Naga Council, added: “We learned that the interlocutor called Naga tribes and not Manipuri Nagas. He likes to divide Manipuri and Nagaland Nagas. We will not accept his tactics.” He added that the Naga Hoho would determine the stand of his organisation.
Another headache for the Centre is the NSCN(IM)'s demand that Naga regions of other states—Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Assam—be merged with Nagaland. If that happens, Manipur would almost be halved. Ravi has asked the NSCN(IM) to take up the issue directly with the governments in those states.
“After talking to all civil society organisations, we have decided not to favour boundary alteration of our state,” Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh told THE WEEK. “We have conveyed this to the prime minister and the home minister.”
The Centre has deployed Army and paramilitary forces in Manipur, and civil society groups there have written to Singh, asking him to remove the troops.
Ravi refused to comment, but his office told THE WEEK: “This is a crucial and sensitive situation. I (Ravi) would speak to you later.”
Said Stephen Sethon, a tribal civil society leader, “The interlocutor is facing huge pressure from the Indian government and the prime minister. That is why he was made governor. He is in return trying every means to fulfil the prime minister's wish. But, we all hope he would not mess it up.”