Home » SUPRA STATE’ OFFER IN LIEU OF NAGALIM IN GOI-NSCN-IM PEACE TALK TIMELINE

SUPRA STATE’ OFFER IN LIEU OF NAGALIM IN GOI-NSCN-IM PEACE TALK TIMELINE

by IT Web Admin
0 comment 27 minutes read

by Aheibam Koireng Singh

Asst. Professor, Centre for Manipur Studies (CMS),

Manipur University 

Abstract

On 14 November 2011, the erstwhile Seven Sisters Post in its news report leaked that the GoI envisages a final settlement with a NSCN rebel faction led by Issak-Muivah and the GoI. The Prime Minister as well as the Union Home Minister had rejected the report as baseless. But when the Seven Sisters Post stand by its report, outrightly rejecting the denial by the GoI of having any such proposal, there were virtually no defense by the later. The report exposed that the GoI had rejected the NSCN’s demand for Nagalim stating that it is not possible in the absence of political consensus from all concerned as boundary of the states can only be altered with the approval of the Legislative Assembly of the respective states. The GoI while convincing the NSCN-IM to do away with its aspired territory of Nagalim had in lieu of it offered a Supra-state body as the “second best option” for ensuring some kind of cultural integration of the Naga areas of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam with state of Nagaland exercising authority over cultural, social and customary practices of Nagas. This pan Naga supra state body will be in the recognition of the distinct identity of the Nagas. Despite having the same party (with the Centre) in power the said proposal for supra state body was also opposed by the respective government in all the three states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur. Political parties, community based organizations, and many prominent personalities in the region also have voiced their opposition to the supra state proposal. Soon after, the issue of supra state for Nagas was eclipsed by the demand of creating a separate state of “Frontier Nagaland”. What can be gauged from the melee surrounding the issue of supra state is that any solution in isolation is not going to be durable and bound to generate conflicts. If a solution is to be sought, it should not be in part but in whole involving all the communities in the region.

INTRODUCTION

The tribes in Manipur who afterwards began to be known as belonging to the Naga fold did not know the term ‘Naga’ as late as 1940s. Noted Tangkhul writer, RR Shimray while recalling his boyhood experience when he and his father were called ‘Naga’ by a retreating Japanese troop who entered their house, stated that, they told the Japanese troops that they were Tangkhuls and not Naga. The cooption and embracing of tribes in Manipur by the NNC began for the first time in 1947 when it said, “the Naga tribes are not a single tribe, but a whole group of them. Angami, Rengma, Sengma, Tangkhul, Mao, Sangtam, Zemi, Kabui, etc., each different from the others in custom and dialect, but all closely related in forming a distinct block”. So, Tangkul, Mao and Kabui were the first to be identified as Nagas among the non-Kuki tribes in Manipur by the underground led Nagaisation campaign spearheaded from Nagaland. However, no tribes of Manipur took part in the plebiscite of 1951, which was considered as the bed-rock of Naga independence movement.

In 25 January 1952, the Nagas in Nagaland under the banner of NNC launched Civil Disobedience Movement. As a part of it, the first Indian elections to the parliament and the Electoral College of 1952 were successfully boycotted. On the other hand, in Manipur, all the ethnic groups took active part in the said elections and a Tangkhul was elected from the outer parliamentary constituency of Manipur. The Naga insurgency started in 1956. In response to it, the Government of India (GoI) created the Naga Hills Teunsang Area (NHTA) in 1957. Later, the GoI made an agreement with the Naga Peoples’ Convention (NPC) in 1960 and subsequently formed the sixteenth state of Indian republic in 1963 to be named as Nagaland. The extension of Indo-Naga ceasefire in 1964 in its three hill subdivisions namely, Mao, Tamenglong and Ukhrul was the beginning of the legitimization of the Naga ethnic territory. It is, however, worthy of note that many of the prominent leaders of the tribes who were later to be identified as Nagas struck to the stand of remaining with Manipur instead of acceding to Nagaland. The All Tribal Delegation went to Delhi in May 1970 for demanding statehood of Manipur, which included four prominent Naga leaders. They are as follows:

1. Mr. Daiho, Minister, Manipur Assembly (1948); 2. Mr. Stephen Angkang, Former President (Tangkhul Long); 3. Mr. K. Kalanlung, President, Zeliangrong Regional Council (ZRC); 4. Mr. Shoukhothang Ashon, Former MLA

The Naga ethnic armed groups engaged either in consolidating or expanding Naga integration are compartmentalized on tribal lines. In a GoI report brought out in the mid 90s of the passing twentieth century , there were four outfits, namely,

1. National Socialist Council of Nagaland, Khaplang Faction; 2. Naga National Council- Adino faction (NNC-A); 3. National Socialist Council of Nagalim – Isak and Muivah faction (NSCN-IM); Naga National Council – Khadao faction (NNC-K)

In addition, National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Unification was formed by several cadres who broke away from the NSCN-IM led by its one-time ‘home minister’ Azheto Chopey on 23 November 2007. NSCN (Khole-Kitovi) faction was formed on June 7, 2011. The faction was formed by a dissenting group of cadres of NSCN-Khaplang faction (NSCN-K) under the leadership of Khole Konyak and Kitovi Zhimoni. In recent times also, many Naga armed groups which doesn’t toe the line with the dictats and whims of the NSCN-IM such as Naga National Liberation Authority (NNLA), Manipur Naga Revolutionary Front (MNRF), and Zeilangrong United Front (ZUF) having their own respective territorial control also came into existence

The NNC-K was later merged with the NSCN-IM. The membership of the NSCN-K mainly belongs to the Ao and Konyak tribes of Nagaland. The NNC-A cadres were drawn mainly from Angami and Chakhesang tribes. The NNC-K largely belongs to the Lotha tribe. The membership of NSCN-IM consists mainly of Tangkhul and Sema tribes. In the midst of these half a dozen outfit, it is pertinent to contemplate whether NSCN-IM carries the mandate of the Naga people.

The Naga National Assembly convened by Mr. Isak Chishi Swu, Vice President NNC, and Mr. Th. Muivah, General Secretary NNC, rejected the Shillong Accord as a sell-out and condemned the signatories of the Accord as traitors in October 1975. National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) was formed in January 1980 by the activists of NNC/Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) regrouping on the Burmese side of the border, with the declared objective of carrying forward the struggle for Naga national independence. By the beginning of 1988, there were serious differences within the leadership of the NSCN which ultimately led to its split into two- one led by Isak and Muivah and the other led by Khaplang. Apart from NSCN-IM, other armed Naga groups are not giving too much importance and emphasis to the inclusion of ‘Naga inhabited areas’ of Manipur, Nagaland and Assam to proposed Nagalim. With the NSCN-IM seemingly abandoning the agenda of sovereign Nagaland ever since it enter into peace agreement with the GoI, Eastern Nagaland, to be formed by dismembering the territory of Eastern Myanmar, which earlier constitutes the inalienable part of sovereign Nagaland no longer features in and is conveniently avoided in their demand. In connection with it, Subhir Bhaumik, Editor of Seven Sister Post once commented, “If Eastern Nagaland can go, what is so holy about Southern Nagaland.”

Onwards from the early part of the 90s of the passing twentieth century, Naga organizations operating in Manipur both overground and underground have intensely been engaged in ethnic homogenization of territory in Manipur Hills through forced population transfer, mass annihilation, and cooption. V. Sumi and K. Timothy (1997) listed 38 numbers of tribe living in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Eastern Myanmar as belonging to the Naga nation. Out of the said 38 tribe, 18 tribes are in Manipur. In the early part of 2002, the NSCN (IM) suggests a number of 43. Instances of tribes being encompassed within the Naga fold is still an ongoing process. The simple example of it is the Peace Process Annual Calendar, 2008, Ministry of Information and Publicity, GPRN, in which the number was expanded to 68.

A Ceasefire with NSCN-IM was declared on 25 July 1997 by the GoI to begin peace talk between the two. The apprehension of the likely dismemberment of Manipur’s territory caused by it led to the staging of massive rally at the heart of Imphal city participated by approximately 4.5 Lakh populace. The Kuki-Naga clash which rocked the entire state was also still ongoing at that time. One Committee for Restoration of Normalcy formed by coming together the ‘apex body’ of the Kuki and the Naga, the Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM) and the United Naga Council (UNC) with a patronage of the state government was also there. However, CRN with few noticeable successes had to be prematurely wind up as KIM no longer wanted to associate with UNC after the later had resolved to welcome and endorse the Ceasefire Agreement between the GoI and NSCN-IM on 25 July 1997. UNC, in its emergency meeting held at TTA Conference Hall at Ukhrul on 22 August 1997, resolved to insist that the four districts of Manipur namely, Senapati, Tamenglong, Chandel and Ukhrul should be included within the purview of the ceasefire agreement and the GoI-NSCN-IM dialogue. It further resolved that any Member of Parliament (MP) and MLA from amongst the communities affiliated to UNC should be made to resign if he or she does not act and speak towards positive implementation of the above resolutions. This demand of the UNC was termed by the KIM as the Second Quit Notice for the disintegration of Manipur. The KIM, in the same press release, also speculated that civil war will be an inevitable consequence if the GoI’s ‘Naga Appeasement Policy’ adversely affects the territorial integrity of the whole Northeastern region.

On 14 June 2001, a joint statement signed by K. Padmanabhiah and Th. Muivah respectively on behalf of the GoI and the NSCN-IM agreed to extend the ceasefire without territorial limits. It led to unprecedented outcry and the violent protest arising out of it resulting to the burning of state assembly and official residences of legislatures. 23 persons also have lost their lives due to police firing. The GoI afterwards on 27 July 2001 decided to restrict the ceasefire with NSCN-IM to Nagaland and not extend it to other Northeastern states in the wake of continuing violent opposition in Manipur.

On 14 November 2011, the erstwhile Seven Sister Post leaked out in its news report , Supra State Body’ likely Christmas gift for the Nagas !” that the GoI envisages a final settlement with a NSCN rebel faction led by Issak-Muivah and the GoI. The 12-page Status report” on Government of India – NSCN ((I-M) negotiations that was purportedly submitted by Naga peace interlocutor R S Pandey to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was later uploaded at http://e-pao.net. It contains the gist of the status of discussions and negotiations on various issues submitted by NSCN-IM. It has three columns, issue-wise: one contains the NSCN (IM)’s position, the other detailing the Government of Indian’s position and the third column, saying “remarks”.

The report touches upon 26 subjects. They are as follows:

1. Security and security forces; 2. Customs; 3. 3. Elections; 4. Citizenship; 5. Legislature; 6. Judiciary; 7. Government executive; 8. Civil service; 9. land ownership; 10. Immigration; 11. Secular government; 12. Education; 13. Cultural affairs; 14. Language; 15. Natural resources; 16. Economy; 17. Currency and monetary policy; 18. Taxation; 19. Development and tourism; 20. State flag and emblem; 21. Transport; 22. International relations; 23. Postal system and stamps; 24. Protection of minorities within Nagaland; 25. Nagaland Commission of Human Rights; 26. Boundaries; 27. Interim Arrangements; 28. Guarantees for Implementation

The excerpts of the gist of the various issues submitted by NSCN-IM and the GoIs position as conveyed during negotiation status of discussions and negotiations are hereby reproduced in para wise as follows:

SECURITY AND SECURITY FORCES

NSCN-IM’s Position: The security of the people of Nagaland should be guaranteed by not permitting any outside government or agency to disturb the peace and security in Nagaland.

GoI’s Position: The Government of Nagaland will have its own armed forces and will be exclusively responsible for the internal security of Nagaland. The armed forces of India and those of Nagaland will be jointly responsible for the external defence of Nagaland alone, in case of external threat.

Remarks: GoI is broadly acceptable to the NSCN-IM

CUSTOMS

NSCN-IM’s position: Government of India should not levy duties on goods in transit destined for Nagaland. A special arrangement should also be made with respect to exemption of central excise and sales tax for goods manufactured in India and destined for Nagaland.

GoI’s Position: GoI says issue will be examined and seems possible.

Remarks: “Likely to be agreed”

CITIZENSHIP

NSCN-IM’s position: Citizens of Nagaland will automatically be citizens of India for purposes of travel document and for employment. Passports will however, indicate the Naga citizenship or nationality of the holder also.

GoI’s Position: Dual citizenship neither desirable nor possible. The passport will indicate the residency in Nagaland.

Remarks: NSCN-IM explained that their position on citizenship is based on maintaining the identity of the Nagas and protecting them from Non-Nagas. It is also a sensitive issue for the Nagas as they have always maintained that they are a separate nation. Hence at least dual citizenship be considered. It was explained to them that identity of Nagas will be maintained by creating a pan Naga (supra-state) body. Nagas have acquired citizenship in some other countries. So, separate or dual citizenship need not be insisted. Further negotiations on this issue are necessary.”

LEGISLATURE

NSCN-IM’s Position: Nagaland will have its own Tatar Hoho elected by the citizens of Nagaland

GoI’s Position: Nagaland would continue to have its own legislature which would be called the legislative assembly in English. State government would be competent to use the nomenclature “Tatar Hoho” purely as a matter of translation as the equivalent in Nagaland language.

Remarks: NSCN (IM) mentioned that Tatar Hoho will be ‘parliament’ and not ‘assembly’ and that the issue need not be viewed from the perspective of the Constitution of India. A separate constitution for them is a must. It was explained to them that since it has been agreed between the two parties that competencies of the Government of India, Government of Nagaland and jointly between the two is similar. To the scheme of the Constitution of India wherein List 1, List II and List III (Schedule VII) provide for the three competencies. List II refers to the States’ competency. In case of Nagaland, List II will be enhanced by bringing in subjects from List I & List III to reflect the uniqueness of Nagas. Therefore the Tatar Hoho will be equivalent of legislature, retention of the word ‘Tata Hoho’ itself protects the sensitivity as well as the uniqueness. The issue needs to be further discussed.

ELECTIONS

NSCN-IM’s Position: Only citizens of Nagaland may vote for elected positions. Similarly only citizens of Nagaland may stand as candidates for elected positions. Political parties in Nagaland will be created by Naga citizens.

GoI’s Position:

Remarks: It was explained to them Nagas’ freedom to have a party of their choice need not be restricted. Let them select or reject any party, national or state or an independent candidate. Moreover since integration of contiguous Naga areas is not becoming possible, the NSCN-IM’s formulation may not be in the interest of Nagas outside Nagaland. The status quo, may, therefore, be maintained. The issue needs to be negotiated further.

JUDICIARY

NSCN-IM’S Position: Nagaland can establish its own judicial system taking into account the judicial system of India and the indigenous customary law.

GoI’s Position: Nagaland will provide for the administration of civil and criminal justice system in the matters of their customary law till such time as Legislative Assembly decides otherwise. Nagaland will also have courts to deal with matters relating to ownership and transfer of land under their customary law. In addition to these, Nagaland may have civil and criminal courts based on the judicial system of India and a High Court may be set up within the overall supervision and control of Supreme Court of India.

Remarks: NSCN-IM generally agrees with the Government of India formulation but is of the view that the position regarding Supreme Court needs to be reformulated for which further discussion is necessary.

GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE

NSCN-IM’s Position: Government of Nagaland will comprise of cabinet of Kilonsers and a Ato Kilonser elected by Tatar Hoho. The constitutional head of the government will be a Yaruwo.

GoI’s Position: Nagaland would have the freedom to use nomenclature of Naga language for Ministers (KiIonsers) and Chief Minister ‘Ato Kilonser’. The constitutional head of the state will be the Governor for which the name in the Naga language could be ‘Yaruiwo’

Remarks: Agreed

CIVIL SERVICE

NSCN-IM’s Position: Nagaland will have its own civil service, responsible for its own government.

GoI’s Position: Nagaland shall have its own civil service. The number of All India services officers to be posted in Nagaland and their tenure of different levels in Nagaland. The members of the Nagaland civil service will have the right to be considered for promotion to the All India services.

Remarks: Agreed

IMMIGRATION

NSCN-IM’s Viewpoint: Government of Nagaland will have the authority to regulate the entrants of non-citizens into Nagaland.

GoI’s viewpoint: The existing Inner Line Regulation would be enforced by the state government. However, no Inner Line Permits would be required for officials of the Government of India,. Control of Central Government over Protected Area Permit (PAP) shall remain (can be given to State Government at a later stage)

Remarks: Agreed

LAND OWNERSHIP

NSCN-IM’s Viewpoint: Only citizens of Nagaland may own land in Nagaland. Other residents may lease land but not own it.

GoI’s viewpoint: Present position is that lands in tribal areas are owned only by locals. Even in non-tribal areas, it is allotted by Government, status quo may continue

Remarks: Agreed

SECULAR GOVERNMENT

NSCN-IM’s Viewpoint: The principal religion of Nagaland is Christianity. At the same time, secular democratic nature of the state will be maintained.

GoIs viewpoint:

Remarks: AgreedSECULAR GOVERNMENT

NSCN-IM’s Viewpoint: The principal religion of Nagaland is Christianity. At the same time, secular democratic nature of the state will be maintained.

GoIs viewpoint:

Remarks: Agreed

EDUCATION

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: Govt. of Nagaland to be responsible for education

GoIs viewpoint: Education in Nagaland would be exclusive responsibility of Govt. of Nagaland subject to condition that they adopt standards laid down by Government of India regarding technical and higher education

Remarks: Agreed

CULTURAL AFFAIRS

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: It will come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Nagaland, cultural cooperation and exchange between two parties will be encouraged

GoI’s viewpoint: The issue may be considered while discussing various items in State List, Concurrent List and Union List. It may be possible to consider this.

Remarks: Agreed

LANGUAGE

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: The official language will for the time being English, second languages taught in schools will include local languages and Hindi

GoIs viewpoint: Transaction of official business and imparting of education in Nagaland will be in the English language. However, Hindi and other local language would be taught in schools.

Remarks: Agreed

ECONOMY

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: The economic policy of Nagaland will be formulated and managed in close consultation with the Government of India as long as it is deemed mutually beneficial. Nagaland will have authority to enter into economic and trade relations with other Countries. Nevertheless, A special economic relationship could be agreed upon between india and Nagaland.

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: It will be beneficial for Nagaland to be part of the economic prosperity of India which has entered 21st Century with a bang. Resource deficit states are always considered with greater consideration by GoI

Remarks: Agreed

CURRENCY AND MONETARY POLICY

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: Nagaland will use Indian Constitution for the time being. In the future agreement could be reached for the creation of distinctive coins and paper notes for Nagaland which will be interchangeable with those of India. India will responsible for monetary policy for the time being.

GoI’s viewpoint: Demand dropped

Remarks: NSCN-IM insists that monetary policy with the GoI only temporarily

TAXATION

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: Government of Nagaland will have authority to levy income and other taxes on citizens and residents of Nagaland. It shall also have the authority to set the level of taxes for individuals and corporations to have power to levy excise and sales tax.

GoI’s viewpoint: To the extent such taxes and levies are not subsumed in the goods and services taxes, the state government will be competent to levy land revenue, tax on agricultural income, tax on land and building, mineral rights, excise duty on alcoholic liquors for human consumption and narcotics, entry tax on goods into local area, tax on consumption or sale of electricity, sale tax/VAT. Taxes on professionals, taxes on luxuries, entertainment, amusements and betting and gambling, taxes on mechanical and other vehicles, taxes on animals and goats, taxes on goods and passengers carried by road or inland waterways, stamp duties on documents other than those mentioned in Entry 91 of List 1.

Remarks: Agreed

DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: The Government of Nagaland will have the authority to solicit and receive development assistance and establish partnerships to this end with foreign development agencies. This will be done in consultation with the Government of India. The two parties will also agree upon development assistance from India to Nagaland

GoI’s viewpoint: The Government of Nagaland will have the authority to receive aid from multilateral and national development finance institutions (on back to back basis) subject to the concurrence of the Government of India. In today’s world, private agencies promote tourism instead of government agencies.

Remarks: Agreed

STATE FLAG AND EMBLEM

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint:

Nagaland to have its own flag and emblem

GoI’s viewpoint: Emblem may be decided by Nagaland but no separate flag.

Remarks: NSCN-IM is insistent about separate flag and separate constitution. It has to be noted that even if a separate flag is agreed, it will only be for Government of Nagaland. The contiguous Naga areas in Manipur where Tangkhuls are staying will not be using it. The issue has to be discussed further.

TRANSPORT

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: Air Transport- Nagaland will try to set up its own airline.

GoI’s viewpoint: Except Railways and National Highways, ground transportation may be with Government of Nagaland. It should be examined whether separate airlines will be viable.

Remarks: Agreed

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: The Government of India will have the primary responsibility for the (Demanded in the Memorandum dated 1. 4. 2004). … .

GoIs viewpoint: Government of India will be primarily responsible for external relations but very clear in this regard. … .

Remarks: Agreed

PROTECTION OF MINORITIES WITHIN NAGALAND

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: All persons, who shall be citizens of Nagaland will be treated equally before law. There will be no discrimination whatsoever against person for ethnic origin other than Nagas and cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities will be protected

GoI’s viewpoint: All residents of Nagaland shall be treated equally. Religious and linguistic minorities in Nagaland will have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Remarks: Agreed

NAGALAND COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: An independent commission on human rights will be created

GoI’s viewpoint: However, the state commission’s jurisdiction will only extend to subjects within the competence of the state government and would not include subjects within the competence of the union. However, the enabling act should provide that no proceedings will be initiated against any member of the armed forces of the union for their actions.

Remarks: Agreed

BOUNDARIES

NSCN-IMs Viewpoint: A starting point for talks can be creation of a relationship which guarantees the distinct identity of the Nagas and Nagalim. There should be federal relationship with India governed in such a way that it cannot be changed unilaterally in the future by either side. (*Demanded In The Memorandum 1/4/2004).

More realistic boundary of Nagaland should be agreed upon to integrate Naga areas within one administrative entity.

It is the position of the NSCN-IM that the present so called state of Nagaland Comprises only a portion of Nagaland and that more realistic boundaries should be agreed upon that enable the Naga areas to be integrated within one administrative entity. The portions of Nagaland which are situated in present day Myanmar will not form part of the present negotiations.

GoIs viewpoint: It was explained to them that under law, boundaries of state can be altered only after taking into consideration the views of the concerned state legislatures. The views of the Government of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam are very clear in this regard. Therefore, it would not be possible to concede to the demand in the absence of political consensus from all concerned. Therefore NSCN-IM may think of ‘second best’ if the best in their view is not possible. Possible autonomy of Naga areas without altering the boundaries of state concerned so that in many matters, the representatives of the hill areas may administer the subjects in their charge along with a supra state body for the Nagas for their cultural, social and customary practices may be discussed. This pan Naga supra state bodies will be in the recognition of the distinct identity of the Nagas

Remarks:

INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: Provisions will have to be agreed upon for a smooth transition to the new situation

GoI’s viewpoint: GoI agrees

Remarks: Agreed

GUARANTEES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

NSCN-IM’s viewpoint: A timetable will have to be agreed upon for implementations of the agreements reached. A system will have to be agreed upon to ensure full and timely implementation by both parties.

GoI’s viewpoint: GoI agrees

Remarks: Agreed

The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh as well as the Union Home Minister, Mr. PC Chindambaram had rejected the report as baseless. But when the Seven Sister Post stand by its report, outrightly rejecting the denial by the GoI of having any such proposal, there were virtually no defense by the later.

From the above excerpts of the purported report, it is the position of the Isak Muivah led NSCN that “more realistic boundaries should be agreed upon that will enable the Naga areas to be integrated within one administrative entity”. It also stated that the portions of Nagaland which are situated in present day Myanmar will not form part of the present negotiations”. The report exposed that the GoI had rejected the NSCN’s demand for Nagalim which are to be formed by integrating the ‘contiguous Naga areas’ of Assam, Manipur and Assam with the present state of Nagaland, stating that it is not possible in the absence of political consensus from all concerned as boundary of the states can only be altered with the approval of the Legislative Assembly of the respective states.

Assam had been dismembered multiple times and many new states were formed by parting away her territory. So, there is deep-seated resentment to the prospect of any further territorial bifurcation. Manipur’s erstwhile strategic and fertile territory of Kabaw valley was given away to Burma in the past. Many people are still emotive about it. People of Manipur have for more than multiple times shown that they will rise up in opposition to the threat of any likely dismemberment of Manipur’s territory without any regard for their personal safety. Arunachal Pradesh have also categorically opposed to bifurcation of her territory. So, the GoI while convincing the NSCN-IM to do away with its aspired territory of Nagalim clearly stated, “the views of the Government of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam are very clear in this regard.” In lieu of it, the GoI had offered a Supra-state body for ensuring some kind of cultural integration of the Naga areas of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam with state of Nagaland. This has been projected as the “second best option” for the NSCN if not the best. This suggested body is intended as some sort of non territorial unification of Nagas living across the three Northeastern states of Assam, Manipur and Nagaland. This body will exercise authority over cultural, social and customary practices of Nagas. This pan Naga supra state body will be in the recognition of the distinct identity of the Nagas. The remark column of this subject in the report was left blank without stating whether NSCN-IM has agreed to it or not. But when this report came to public domain following its publication in the Seven Sisters Post, NSCN-IM maintained a stoic silence without rejecting it either.

Despite having the same party (with the Centre) in power the said proposal for supra state body was also opposed by the respective government in all the three states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur. Political parties, community based organizations, and many prominent personalities in the region also have voiced their opposition to the supra state proposal. Soon after, the issue of supra state for Nagas was eclipsed by the demand of creating a separate state of Frontier Nagaland” covering four districts of Eastern Nagaland – Mon, Tuensang, Longleng and Kiphire – and two Naga-inhabited districts of Arunachal Pradesh – Changlang and Tirap. The GoI may have very good intention in putting up the proposal for supra state thinking that it will do away with the apprehension of territorial unification of the Naga while seeking final settlement but past instances taught that the GoI had slipped from its position giving concession after concession with one become a precedent of the other towards emboldening the Naga ultras with their appeasement policy. What can be gauged from the melee surrounding the issue of supra state is that any solution in isolation is not going to be durable and bound to generate conflicts. If a solution is to be sought, it should not be in part but in whole involving all the communities in the region.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

ABOUT US

Imphal Times is a daily English newspaper published in Imphal and is registered with Registrar of the Newspapers for India with Regd. No MANENG/2013/51092

FOLLOW US ON IG

©2023 – All Right Reserved. Designed and Hosted by eManipur!

Adblock Detected

Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website.