With the tenor changing from negotiation to dialogue, there is renewed hope that all the stakeholders in the Naga peace process will be involved in finding a solution
In the weeks following the signing of the August 3 Naga Framework Agreement, the has focused on the belief that the process has now reached the stage of a dialogue from the earlier stage of negotiations. This is reflected in the statements of both R.N. Ravi, the government’s peace interlocutor, and National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) [NSCN(IM)] general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah.
The Naga internal consultative process has tried to be inclusive of civil society bodies, academia, student bodies, social organisations and armed groups since the 1950s. The three Naga Peoples’ Conventions (NPCs) from 1957 to 1959 resulted in the formation of the State of Nagaland, established in 1963. However, this process, inclusive as it may have been, failed to garner the support of A.Z. Phizo, leader of the Naga National Council (NNC), who by 1960 had shifted base to London. From London, Phizo wrote that nothing short of independence was acceptable to the Nagas based on their history and tradition. Phizo’s persistent writings from London fuelled dissent against the 16-point agreement that established Nagaland.
The latest agreement was signed with NSCN (I-M), and other Naga armed groups such as NSCN (Khole-Kitovi) and NSCN (Reformation) have either resisted or welcomed the agreement. NSCN (Khole-Kitovi) pointed out on August 22 at Dimapur that while they welcomed any initiative that recognises Naga history, ethnicity and culture, they do not rejoice at the framework agreement, as it was limited to just the NSCN (I-M).
Getting all actors on board
NSCN (Reformation) led by Wangtin Naga and P. Tikhak have applauded the peace initiative but have highlighted the importance of an inclusive base. Members of the Naga Hoho and others have volunteered to meet NSCN (Khaplang) in Myanmar to bring them into the consultative process.
On August 25, at a People’s Consultative Meeting on the accord, Mr. Muivah spoke about the criticality of getting the other Naga armed actors on board. While explaining the idea of a pan-Naga Hoho (a proposed statutory body as part of the framework agreement) that will enjoy independent executive and budgetary powers to look after the welfare of Naga inhabited areas outside Nagaland, Mr. Muivah again called for mutual understanding and dialogue among the Nagas. Niketu Iralu, a respected peace activist, present at the meeting, highlighted the significance of consultation to bring on board those who remained sceptical.
This consultative aspect leads me to delve deeper into the changing language, from one of negotiation to one that stresses dialogue. While negotiation aims at finding a concrete agreement, dialogue aims at a changed relationship. Naga peace negotiations have been stalled for decades due to the rigid postures of the main parties — like the government’s position that India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty are non-negotiable and the NSCN (I-M)’s insistence that any resolution has to be outside the framework of the Indian Constitution and must include integration of all Naga inhabited areas.
According to Hal Sanders, from the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue and the Kettering Foundation, “Dialogue is a process of genuine interaction through which human beings listen to each other deeply enough to be changed by what they learn. Each makes a serious effort to take others’ concern into her or his own picture, even when disagreement persists. No participant gives up her or his identity, but each recognises enough of the other’s valid human claims that he or she will act differently toward the other.” There are certain key components of a successful dialogue, namely, inclusiveness; joint ownership; listening, learning, and adapting; empathy and humanity; notions of ‘self’ and the ‘other’; understanding of context; transparency; and a vision for the future.
Dialogue aims to bridge
