The peace accord signed between the government of India and the NSCN-IM will be a source to intensify the ethnic misunderstandings in the region, opine experts.
“It is very difficult to comment on the nature of the Councils but it is understandable that, it will be difficult to implement an ethic based council as there is no district in Manipur exclusively inhabited by one particular ethnic group”, said Dr Hanjabam Shukhdeba Sharma, Assistant Professor, Indira Ghandhi National Tribal University.
Rather than a process for peace, it will be a source to intensify the ethnic based conflict particularly the politics of ethnic cleansing, which we have witnessed in Karbi Anglong (KAADC) and Bodoland (BTC), after the creation of ethic based “Autonomous Council”. Manipur has already experienced the pain in the 90s which is yet to heal, he commented.
Examining the press statements, it does not look like a settlement or a solution. It is like a precaution measures for the Nagas in Manipur, as if any untoward happens to the present leadership of NSCN (IM). And, NCSN (IM) or Manipur Nagas seems to forget their sacrifice and negotiated for economic opportunity. The sacrifice could never be equated with the Autonomous Council and this could be the source of another conflict, which we witnessed in Manipur Chin-Kuki-Mizo groups after the signing of MNF and GoI and creation of Mizoram State.
It is not a settlement or solution because NSCN (IM) is not the only source of peace for Nagaland or Manipur. They are part of the larger picture.
Similar Peace Agreement failed in 2011 because of Opposition from Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. GoI should not repeat the mistake of taking ‘Unilateral Decision’ which ignited the episode of June 18, 2011.
The government and the people of the three states must have appreciated the peace agreement/framework agreement, but they will still oppose anything, if the agreement is intruding the interest of the respective state. The only changes is the emergence of NSCN (KK), NSCN (R) in Nagaland and ZUF in Manipur, which indicates the change of power relation of NSCN (IM).
Aheibam Koireng, Assistant Professor of Manipur University observed that there has been an inconsistency in the articulation of their demands by the Isaac Muivah led NSCN Faction. Earlier SC Jamir while he was Chief Minister also stated that ‘NSCN-IM cadres are mainly from Manipur and Nagas of Nagaland do not consider them as Nagas’.
‘Eastern Nagaland’ situated in the Myanmar territory, which used to be an integral part of the aspired sovereign Nagaland by the undivided NSCN no longer features in the ‘Nagalim’ project of the NSCN-IM and is conveniently avoided. What can be surmised from it is that if ‘Eastern Nagaland’ can go, what is so holy about ‘Southern Nagaland’.
Southern Nagaland also can go divorced from IM’s demand if it is found too convenient a baggage to be dragged further. As regards the structure and functions of the proposed ‘autonomous council’ is concerned, it could at best be a remake of the ‘supra state body’ purportedly offered by the GoI while exploring possible ways of granting autonomy to Nagas without altering the boundaries of state.
In Manipur, so may be the case in other states of Northeast also, no area which is sizeable enough and worth considering for granting autonomy is a sole domain for one particular community. In any eventuality of granting autonomy as demanded by one particular faction armed group and its cohorts. The GoI is expected to exercise its magnanimity by not bypassing the states concerned and all state holders, and also to take into consideration that even if an autonomy is to be granted in heterogeneity of populations, it should not be in the form of granting sovereignty to one particular ethnic group, rather the guiding spirit of it should be that of peaceful co-existence.
