Reacting to the statement purportedly made by deputy National Security Adviser (NSA) and Interlocutor to the Naga Peace talks R.N. Ravi at a recent function in Pune, MIP of NSCN (I-M) has reiterated that the ongoing talks with the government of India after the July 1997 cease fire, was after due recognition of the “unique history and situations” of the Naga political issue.
Ravi had purportedly stated that henceforth the government will not hold any new talks, whether conditional or unconditional, with any North East militant outfit and the only option was for them to either fight on or surrender.
Drawing attention to the reportage by one Pradip Deka of Times of Assam under the title “No lateral talks with militants; die fighting or surrender- R.N. Ravi”, MIP claimed this gave the impression that the “Indo-Naga political dialogue” was on seeking solution within the framework of the Indian constitution.
It reminded that the Framework Agreement signed and declared on August 3, 2015 was fundamentally based on the unique history of the Naga people and co-existence through shared sovereignty between the two entities. It said these were the core principles for bringing about final and lasting solution acceptable to both the parties. MIP said Naga people have suffered long enough with many having lost their lives and so the present affords a favourable political climate. However, adopting a hardline approach from the honourable “out of the box” approach to the Naga issue would indicate a clear deviation from the framework agreement that was based on mutual respect and recognition of the two entities, it said.
Instead, MIP said any attempt by the government of India to tread the path of ‘Machiavellianism’ would be a conscious and “deliberate betrayal of the government of India’s position to seek solution without precondition at the highest level, outside India, in a third country and based on the officially recognised unique history and situation of the Nagas.”
It urged upon the government of India to have courage and boldness for her “larger security interest”.
MIP said if lasting and honourable peace was what India desired, then it should not drive away the Nagas or those who seek peace. Warning that military solution would lead to a fresh conflict that would cost lives of many, NSCN (I-M) remarked that there was no “foundational logic or basis” in that approach after over 20 years of political negotiation.
Admitting that rhetoric might have historical roots, it explained that both parties had now left behind their “classical position” and sought an honourable way out of the conflict. And if this environment was not exploited by GoI, NSCN (I-M) said it would then amount to deliberate departure from seeking peaceful solution through political negotiation.
It further cautioned that political negotiation should not be reduced to seeking political gain by any party, and that it amounted to “betrayal” of the basic principles of political negotiations and of the August 3, 2015 Framework Agreement, 2015.
NSCN (I-M) hoped that wisdom would prevent heartache and bring about an honourable solution and permanent peace on both sides. It, however, added that both the parties must honour the moral principles already agreed upon.