“The government of India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on Monday, August 3, 2015 signed a historic peace accord with a leading Naga separatist group Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isaac-Muivah).”
-
A Brief History (1918-1960) : Pre-Independence Era
The Nagas comprising more than 30 tribes have evolved into a rich culture and tradition. Politicization based on their unique and separate identity led to the urge for creation of separate land for Nagas.
Formation of Naga Club & Representation to Simon Commission
The separatist movement can be traced back to 1918, with the founding of Naga Club in Kohima. The Club tendered a memorandum before the Simon Commission which demanded for exclusion of Nagas from the proposed constitutional reform in British administration in India; their plea was unsuccessful.
The separatist movement was given a real face by Angami Zapu Phizo. In 1946, the Naga Club was renamed as Nagaland National Council (NNC). A day before India’s independence, NNC brought under its banner 17 major tribes and 20 sub tribes of Nagas, with a demand for separate sovereign political geography comprising Naga inhabited areas of Nagaland, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Myanmar; thus marking the political conflict between Nagas and Government of India.
Phizo was briefly arrested. On his release he went on to take over as NNC president in 1950; and publicly declared aim to establish a sovereign Naga state.
Boycott of India’s first General Election and India’s first secessionist movement
NNC also held a ‘referendum’ in May 1951 claiming 99% of the Nagas voted in favour of an independent Nagaland but it was never accepted by the Indian government. The first general elections in 1952 were boycotted by the NNC and it started a violent secessionist movement making Naga insurgency the oldest in India.
Armed Forces Special Powers Act
March 22, 1956, Phizo created an underground government called the Naga Federal Government (NFG) and a Naga Federal Army (NFA). In April 1956, the Indian Army was called in to crush the insurgency in what was, till then, the Naga Hills District of the State of Assam. To deal with the situation, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, was subsequently enacted.
Easing Tensions – Peace Accords (1963 – 1980)
M L Kampani – Interlocutor for Shillong Accord Separate State for Nagas
Assam was divided on December 1, 1963 and Nagaland became a separate state and another round of attempts were made for a political settlement.
Peace Mission
Freedom fighter Jai Prakash Narayan, the then Assam chief minister Bimala Prasad Chaliha and Rev. Michael Scott led a Peace Mission to Nagaland in April 1964. An Agreement for Suspension of Operation (AGSOP) was signed with Naga insurgents on September 6, 1964 raising hopes of a peaceful solution. The agreement soon failed as NNC cadres launched a series of attack on security forces. Peace Mission, after six round of talks came to an end in 1967 with no positive result.
NNC and its constituents the NFG and the NFA were declared “unlawful associations” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 and banned by the Centre in 1972.
Shillong Accord – Acceptance of Indian Constitution
An agreement known as the Shillong Accord was signed between the Centre and a section of the NNC and the NFG on November 11, 1975. According to the terms of Shillong Accord, the NNC-NFG accepted the Indian Constitution and agreed to come over-ground and surrender their weapons.
However, a group of about 140 activists of the NNC, repudiated the Shillong Accord and refused to surrender and formed another terror group called National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN). The NSCN leaders were Thuengaling Muivah, Isak Chisi Swu and SS Khaplang and the group was formed in Myanmar (then Burma) in 1980.
Tension Escalates
Map – Greater Nagalim will take away areas of Assam, Arunachal , Mizoram also After the formation there have been many splits in the group. The division of Nagas along clan and tribal lines also played a major role in the insurgency and formation of different terror groups. These factors resulted in a vertical split in the NSCN in 1988. The Konyaks formed a breakaway faction under the leadership of Khole Konyak and SS Khaplang, a Hemie Naga from Myanmar. The Tangkhul faction was led by Isak Swu, a Sema from Nagaland, and Muivah, a Tangkhul from Manipur’s Ukhrul district formed NSCN (Isak – Muviah). This was followed by severe inter-factional clashes in which hundreds of activists of the rival groups had been killed.
After the death of Phizo in 1990, there was split in the NNC, Phizo’s daughter Adino, an Angami, and Khudhao Nanthan, a Sema and a close associate of Phizo, constituted separate groups on rival lines. In the winter of 1996-97, Khudhao joined NSCN (lM). With this move NSCN (IM) was also able to get the support of the Lothas to which Kudao belongs. All factions of the NSCN and NNC (Adino) have been banned since 1991 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
“Secession is not our demand because we were never a part of India”
The NSCN-IM lays primary emphasis on the point that the Naga region was never a part of India and that freedom fighter and India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s argument was fallacious when he said that India had “inherited” the Naga area from the British. The NSCN-IM has taken an inflexible stand on this point and insists that their demand is not for ‘secession’ because they have never been a part of the Indian Union.
Naga Peace Accord 2015 : Framework for agreement
Naga Peace Accord between GoI and NSCN (I-M), New Delhi, August 3, 2015 NSCM-IM’s main demand has been the creation of a ‘Greater Nagalim’ which will also have several districts of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur. The other three states have made it clear that even though they have Naga tribes residing within their boundaries but they will not allow those areas to be a part of ‘Greater Nagalim’ as demanded by the NSCM-IM. In fact according to Naga insurgent groups the ‘Greater Nagalim’ should also include Naga-dominated areas of Myanmar.
The recent draft treaty is a product of negotiations between the NSCN (IM) and the government of India, which started in the mid-1990s. Both parties a declared ceasefire to hostilities in 1997. The NSCN (IM) led by Muivah has held several rounds of talks with interlocutor RN Ravi, appointed by the present Union government, and his predecessors through the last 18 years. The signing of a draft treaty between the Government of India and the NSCN (I-M) in New Delhi on 3 August aim is single – to bring an end to the oldest insurgency in India. The draft treaty is defined as a “framework of agreement” that includes the broad parameters under which a final accord would be written and signed. According to media reports, the final accord will be ready in around three months of time.
Peace Accord: Why Now?
Indian government will not agree to a condition that is outside the Constitution ; autonomous district councils is the way
Firstly, it shows the flexibility and realism of the NSCN (IM) in terms of the willingness to alter goals, from complete sovereignty and Greater Nagalim to acceptance of the constitutional framework albeit with a provision for the grant of greater autonomy to Naga inhabited areas outside of Nagaland through the establishment of autonomous district councils.
Second, NSC- IM was keen to get a peaceful deal given the views in its favour within its own constituent support groups. ( Also, the rival NSCN (K) abrogated its cease-fire with the Government of India on March 27, 2015, and following it up with the June 4 ambush in Manipur that killed 20 military personnel.)
Third, the leaders of the NSCN (IM), Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu, have been forthcoming since 2011 to sign a framework agreement that pledges to preserve the culture, history and traditions of the Nagas and grants greater autonomy to Naga inhabited areas outside of Nagaland. No one has a problem with preservation of Naga’s unique history and culture. The only opposition is – no contiguous territorial integration. Why? because Nagas live in pockets and its impossible to have a contiguous area without having non-Naga tribes as minorities there.
Fourth, the Govt’s own promise to resolve the Naga conflict within an 18 months’ timeframe has been a factor in the signing of the framework agreement.
Peace Accord: Positive Side
1. The govt did good by engaging those who want to make peace and talk within the framework of the Indian Constitution. Often it happens that govt tries to appease the most radical group ( like NSC K in this case ) and in doing so it sidelines the groups that are less radical and willing to talk. This has the impact that radical groups gain importance.
Peace Accord: Criticism – The Most relevant part for exam
- The deal has been done in utmost secrecy , so what the accord actually is, is not known.
- Civil Society groups have been kept out of it.
- If it amounts to a mere financial package, then it wont work because it doesn’t solve the root cause of the problem.
- CMs of Manipur , Arunachal and Assam also don’t know what the accord is, and their reaction will depends on one factor – alteration of territory to meet Naga demands.
- NCSC (IM ) says that the accord is based on shared sovereignty. Does this mean that govt has accepted something beyond the mandate of the Constitution?
- Biggest criticism : The deal has not been reached with the Naga people – but only a faction – NSCN (IM ) . Violent Groups like NSCN ( K) which has been indulging in violence has been kept out of the whole deal.
Leave a Reply