Political limbo

In the absence of any perceivable signs of expected political resolution despite two agreements signed in 2015 and 2017 between the two main stakeholders with the government of India over the seven decade-old Naga political issue, voices demanding immediate solution are getting shriller while the government of India’s silence is deafening. The current impasse follows after almost thirty years of prolonged negotiations that eventually led to signing of two agreements– Framework Agreement (2015) and Agreed Position (2017)– with the last having been signed nine years ago yet solution to the Naga political issue remains elusive. The patience of the people is wearing thin because they see no reason as to why Naga solution cannot be secured. Of late there have been a series of public rallies to ventilate the demands on the government of India to do what it was expected to do-deliver as promised in 2014.This demand is logical since the agreements were the outcome of prolonged negotiation spanning around 30 years. Three decades of talks is not merely a figure but an era. The crux of the matter is the contradiction in the interpretation of the Framework Agreement between then Interlocutor and later governor of Nagaland, R.N. Ravi. In an exclusive interview with the Nagaland Post on February 28, 2020, Ravi stated unequivocally that the Framework Agreement “had no mention of ‘shared sovereignty’ or Nagas as a separate entity,” and that it was “a commitment to settle the Naga political issue on the basis of power sharing with due regard to the contemporary realities.” Further, Ravi said the insistence on flag and constitution came long after the FA was signed. This interpretation directly contradicts the NSCN (I-M)’s understanding, which maintains that the Framework Agreement explicitly recognizes “shared sovereignty” between the Government of India and the Nagas as two distinct entities. The NSCN (I-M) points to language in the agreement stating that “the Government of India and the NSCN, respecting people’s wishes for sharing the sovereign power as defined in competencies, reached an agreement.” This captures a fundamental tension in the Naga peace process that has created significant ambiguity and confusion about the actual status of negotiations. This examines the divergence between the conclusive pronouncements of former Interlocutor Ravi, the institutional shift marked by AK Mishra’s appointment as Representative of the government of India, and the NPF government’s continued insistence on political engagement at the highest level and that the Interlocutor be on cabinet status. On the other hand the WC,NNPGs declared on August 14, 2020, that based on the Agreed Position(which it signed on November 17, 2017 with the government of India) that , “all contentious issues have been negotiated and resolved in principle” and expressed readiness to sign the final agreement “any day and any time.” Critically, the NNPG’s position emphasizes resolving the Naga issue within the boundaries of Nagaland state and within the Indian constitutional framework, distinguishing their approach from the NSCN (I-M)’s demand for a “Greater Nagalim.” The proliferation of armed factions-from four in 2003 to nearly 30 factions today -reflects the fragmentation that occurs when the peace process lacks clarity and momentum. Extortion and “taxation” by armed groups continue, the socio-economic development of Nagaland remains constrained, and younger generations are losing faith in the possibility of a negotiated settlement. The Naga people have now endured nearly three decades of ceasefire and dialogue without a final settlement and inordinate delay might push Nagas to the brink.