Modi govt signs historic peace accord with Nagaland's NSCN(I-M)

[livingdead]

well done Modi. This is genuinely a big achievement for BJP govt.

 

[Hindustani78]

Updated: August 16, 2015 00:07 IST
Naga peace deal only a framework: Rijiju - The Hindu

The National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) has withdrawn its demand of sovereignty and now want “a solution within the Constitution of India”, Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju said on Saturday, days after the Naga “peace accord” was signed at a much-publicised ceremony here. The accord became possible because Prime Minister Narendra Modi took a “big lead”, Mr. Rijiju said, even as he acknowledged that the northeastern states of Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh were not consulted as the “final solution has not been arrived yet”.

In an exclusive interview to The Hindu, the Minister, who is from Arunachal Pradesh, said the deal was only a “framework agreement”. Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, he said, have been forced to make a U-turn and oppose it on the directions of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi.

At a high-profile event on August 3, presided over by Mr. Modi, the government announced that a “peace accord” had been signed with the NSCN(I-M), the largest Naga group in talks with the government.

If the Chief Ministers Tarun Gogoi, Nabam Tuki and Okram Ibobi Singh, whose States have a sizeable Naga population, said they were not consulted on the Naga peace accord, even the Home Affairs Ministry was reportedly kept out of the entire process.

Asked if the Ministry was consulted before the announcement, Mr. Rijiju said: “The interlocutor [peace interlocutor R.N. Ravi] represents the government. He briefs the Home Ministry from time to time. It does not make any difference, how and when it was decided. That was the PM’s call; it does not mean we were in the dark. PM wants action and proper positive action, without any delay. It is just an announcement, not important when I came to know. We are all part of the team.”

He said nobody in the northeast opposed the agreement. “It is only because of Ms. Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi that it is being made into a political issue. Why should Congress parade its Chief Ministers against such an important decision? PM has said they would be consulted in due course of time. They can make their point later on. Asking them [the Chief Ministers] to delete Facebook and Twitter posts [praising the deal] and oppose this particular step was [a] totally avoidable [act of the Congress]. I did not expect a national party like the Congress to play politics,” Mr. Rijiju said.



Myanmar operation

Referring to the episode in which Special Forces of the Indian Army crossed into Myanmar and destroyed insurgent camps including that of the NSCN-Khaplang, a group that violated the ceasefire with India in March, Mr. Rijiju said the 1,643-km-long border the two countries shared was not manned properly as India and Myanmar had friendly relations.

Explaining that India would require an agreement to fence the border, he said: “Currently, we don’t deploy border guards at zero point. Right now, there is no such move to fence it either. We have to make our border patrolling more robust. The militant groups operate on this side as well as that side of the border. The issue concerns both the countries.”

The Home Ministry has moved a Cabinet note to compensate families whose members have been killed in firing along the Pakistan border. “We have moved the Cabinet [to put on par] those killed due to ceasefire violation by Pakistani forces” with victims of communal violence or terrorist acts. The suggestion to give Rs. 5 lakh to the kin of each of the deceased is at a proposal stage now.

 

[Hindustani78]

Naga problem can be solved in two years: NSCN faction leader | Zee News

Last Updated: Monday, September 7, 2015 - 13:44

New Delhi: The Naga imbroglio that has been festering for over five decades and has claimed countless lives of civilians and security personnel can be solved within two years if the Indian government has the will to do so, a leader of one of the factions of National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) that supports the recently signed Naga Peace Accord has said.

"We have been fighting for Naga sovereignty for decades demanding the carving of a Naga country from both Myanmar and India. But, we have found that it's practically impossible. So the Nagas from the Indian side should seek a solution from India and Nagas in Myanmar should seek solution from Myanmar," NSCN (Reformation) president Y. Wangtin Naga, told IANS in an interview.

If the talks failed, they were ready to struggle for another couple of decades, he added.

Wangtin, was in the capital with his NSCN (Reformation) delegation to meet Naga Peace Interlocutor R.N. Ravi. The group was the first among other NSCN factions to have come forward to support the Naga Peace Accord signed between the NSCN (I-M), which as of now is considered to be only a framework. However, it has have urged for more transparency and talks for suggestions from allstake-holders.

One of the major points of the discussions between Ravi and the delegation was the role to be played by the NSCN (Reformation) in the peace talks.

Speaking on the issue, NSCN (Reformation) general secretary P. Tikhak told IANS: "We have worked for the Naga people. They have suffered a lot. It is appreciable that the government of India has understood that they are Indians and we are Nagas and at the same Nagas are not Indians (they have distinct identities). These two things should not dilute."

"We need to allow the Naga people to live on their own and progress, develop on their own. As far as the Indians and Nagas are concerned, they can always live together and help each other with their own sovereignty," Tikhak said.

"As far as the Naga Peace Accord serves the cause of the Naga people, we have no objection. But the results of the accord should be in favour of the Nagas completely," Tikhak added.

Wangtin, who was formerly a senior leader with NSCN (Khaplang), has said that the only reason S.S. Khaplang had abrogated a 14-year-old ceasefire with the Indian government earlier this year was because he was being constantly mislead by two of his deputies - Niki Sumi and Starson Lamkang.

"The abrogation was the final blow to Khaplang. It was the biggest fault that he could commit. Khaplang once used to be the best leader, but over the years he has been constantly misguided by some of his deputies, precisely Starson and Sumi. Even the abrogation of the ceasefire was the result of it," Wangtin maintained.

The 50-year-old leader said that the octogenarian rebel leader, apart from his own men, was also misguided by other militant groups such as the United Liberation Front of Assam, Kamatapur Liberation Organisation (KLO) and Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL), too, have been guiding Khaplang against the Indian Government. All the groups have their base around the Indo-Myanmar border.

"It's very unfortunate that before the abrogation of the ceasefire Khaplang was told that the Indian Government will fear them if the ceasefire was violated. Even I and Tikhak tried to make his understand, but instead of listening to us he expelled us," said Wangtin.

The NSCN (Reformation) was formed in April after Wangtin and Tikhak were expelled from the NSCN (Khaplang) after differences with its leadership.

IANS

 

[Hindustani78]

AAPSU team meets central interlocutor on Naga issue | Zee News

Itanagar: Centre's interlocutor R N Ravi has met a delegation of All Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union (AAPSU) and promised the state's interest will not be compromised during the time of executing final draft of the Naga Peace Accord between the Centre and NSCN (IM), the student body said in a statement Tuesday.

A delegation of the apex students' body of the state led by its President Kamta Lapung and General Secretary Biru Nasi met Ravi in New Delhi yesterday and asked him not to compromise the territorial integrity of the state while executing the final draft of the Naga peace accord with NSCN (IM), the AAPSU statement said.

As of now the Centre is yet to make any decision concerning Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, the statement quoted Ravi as saying.

He added that before the final draft of the accord was made, he would consult not only the government of Arunachal Pradesh but also with the concerned stake holders including civil societies and student bodies of the state, the statement further said.

Lapung had requested Ravi to take into consideration the demands of the union before the final accord which should ensure the safety and security of the people of Arunachal Pradesh, particularly in insurgency-hit Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts.

The other members of the delegation included Spokesperson Tanya Agu, Deputy Speaker Arjun Dodum and Joint Secretary Marto Boje, the release added.



PTI

 

[Hindustani78]

Govt bans Naga militant group NSCN-K for five years - The Hindu

Updated: September 16, 2015 17:35 IST

The government on Wednesday banned for five years Naga militant outfit NSCN-K, which has been involved in a series of attacks, including the killing of 18 soldiers of the Army in Manipur in June.

The decision has been taken at a meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi here.

“The NSCN-K responsible for explosions, ambushes and bombings has been declared as an unlawful organisation for a period of five years,” Union Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told reporters here after the Cabinet meeting.

Mr. Prasad said the decision has been taken by the government after much deliberations taking into account the recent activities of the Naga insurgent group.

“This has been done based on objective evidence after elaborate considerations,” Mr. Prasad said.

Union Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi said the NSCN-K was declared a banned organisation after deliberations and though and following due legal process.

Mr. Prasad said the NDA government wants to have dialogue with all insurgent groups in the north-east as per a policy announced by the then Prime Minister Atal Bihar Vajpayee.

The ban on NSCN-K, led by S.S. Khaplang, came days after the National Investigation Agency, probing the June 4 incident in Manipur, where the outfit’s cadres killed 18 Army soldiers, declared a reward of Rs 7 lakh for giving information about Khaplang and Rs 10 lakh about one of his deputies Niki Sumi.

The NSCN-K had unilaterally abrogated the ceasefire agreement with the government in March and since then has been involved in a series of attacks including killing of eight jawans of Assam Rifles in Nagaland.

Sources said there were differences within the government over declaring the NSCN-K as an outlawed organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

While the Home Ministry officials had been insisting for declaring it as a banned group, the interlocutor for Naga talks R N Ravi was reportedly in favour of reopening talks with the group.

A delegation of Naga civil society, with government’s consent, has already gone to Myanmar to persuade Khaplang to come to the negotiating table.

Khaplang is a Myanmarese Naga and is believed to be now at Taga, a border town in Myanmar.

However, the NSCN-IM, which entered into an agreement with the central government to bring lasting peace in Nagaland recently, has been demanding declaring NSCN-K a banned group.

National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-K) led by Khaplang has a strength of around 1,000 cadres with several camps across the border, a few of which were attacked by Indians Army commandos on June 9.

In May, nine militant groups of the northeast, including the NSCN-K and the ULFA faction led by Paresh Baruah formed a conglomerate of insurgents called ‘United National Liberation Front of West South East Asia’.

 

[coffee_cup]

It is a good step. India should give sovereignity to other 20 states under insurgency as well and sign such agreements with them too. Let them have their own military, foreign policy etc.

This will solve the problems of all those freedom struggles going on in India.

 

[me_itsme]

It is a good step. India should give sovereignity to other 20 states under insurgency as well and sign such agreements with them too. Let them have their own military, foreign policy etc.

This will solve the problems of all those freedom struggles going on in India.

Even Pakistan should do the same they should give freedom to Balochistan, Sindh, P-O-K, Karachi, Islamabad, Punjab

 

[coffee_cup]

Even Pakistan should do the same they should give freedom to Balochistan, Sindh, P-O-K, Karachi, Islamabad, Punjab

There is an insurgency going on in Islamabad?

Must by Almas Bobby,

 

[me_itsme]

There is an insurgency going on in Islamabad?

Must by Almas Bobby,

Lol come on you made a stupid comment, I made a stupid comment, classic Indian Pakistani TIT for tat

 

[Hindustani78]

It is a good step. India should give sovereignity to other 20 states under insurgency as well and sign such agreements with them too. Let them have their own military, foreign policy etc.

This will solve the problems of all those freedom struggles going on in India.

For some 1000 cadres who operate and come from Myanmar , You want to talk about Soverignity ?

India is still asking Myanmar to hunt them down and like a responsible nation co ordinate with Myanmar Government to flush them out.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Peace accord with "declared terrorists"? Licking your own vomit Indians?

NEW DELHI: The government has signed a historic peace accord with Nagaland's insurgent group Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) on Monday.

This was announced at a joint event in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, home minister Rajnath Singh, other government officials and NSCN(I-M) chief Thuingaleng Muivah along with other NSCN leaders.



Story developing ...


Modi govt signs historic peace accord with Nagaland's NSCN(I-M) - The Times of India

 

[Great Sachin]

some Pakistani will be disappointed....insurgency in India is reducing...damn

 

[Hindustani78]

NLF urges Centre to reconsider ban on NSCN(K) - The Hindu

The Nagaland Legislators Forum (NLF) on Friday urged the Centre to reconsider the ban imposed on Naga militant outfit NSCN(K) and resume the ceasefire in the interest of the people of the state.

“The action by the Centre is against the wishes and desire of the people,” state Assembly Speaker and NLF Convenor Chotisuh Sazo said in a statement in Kohima.

Stating that Nagas have been requesting the Government of India and the NSCN(K) to resume their ceasefire so as to let peace reign in our land, Sazo said that a memorandum of NLF submitted to the Prime Minister on July 17, 2015 had urged the Centre to resume ceasefire with NSCN (K).

This, he said, was further reiterated in the NLA resolution passed in the recently held Ninth Session of the Twelfth Nagaland Legislative Assembly, held from July 21 to 27 which was subsequently “endorsed” by all the mass based civil organizations in the consultative meet with the NLF on July 31, 2015.

“It is obvious now that the ban would create more rift and mistrust between the Government of India and NSCN(K) and will vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the state,” the NLF said.

The Centre on September 16 banned for five years NSCN-K, which has been involved in a series of attacks, including the killing of 18 soldiers of the Army in Manipur in June.

 

[Hindustani78]

SS Khaplang never wanted ceasefire: NSCN faction leader | Zee News

Last Updated: Friday, September 18, 2015 - 18:11
New Delhi: NSCN-K leader SS Khaplang never wanted ceasefire with the Indian government and had agreed to it only because of pressure from the Naga civil society, according to NSCN-Unification general secretary Kitovi Zhimomi.

"Actually, Khaplang was not in favour of ceasefire right from the beginning but could not resist the pressure of the civil society which was spearheaded by the NBCC (Nagaland Baptist Churches Council)," Zhimomi said in an interview published in the latest issue of the North East Sun magazine.

His comments came even as the central government on Wednesday banned the Khaplang faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland for five years for abrogating the ceasefire with a series of attacks on Indian security forces starting in March.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) also on September 10 declared a bounty of Rs.7 lakh on Khaplang and Rs.10 lakh on another militant of the faction, Niki Sumi, for information leading to their arrest.

Zhimomi, who was the self-styled 'prime minister' of the Khaplang faction of the underground NSCN, left the outfit in 2011 after impeaching Khaplang for deciding on his own to abrogate the ceasefire that was in place since 2001.

"At the same time, we also tried to convince Khaplang to have the ceasefire in order to have a dialogue with the government of India," Zhimomi said.

"And in 2001, we signed the ceasefire. After 10 years of ceasefire, in 2011, Khaplang had already made up his mind to abrogate the ceasefire and ordered top functionaries to get inside Burma (Myanmar) by July 30 so that he could call for the boycott of the Indian Independence Day on August 15 in Nagaland."

According to Zhimomi, he as the then general secretary of the NSCN-K, immediately convened an emergency national meeting to deliberate on the issue.

"The house unanimously impeached Khaplang for taking such drastic decision on his own without taking parliament into confidence. It was on May 7, 2011. We impeached him for displaying dictatorial attitude and high handedness," the NSCN-U leader stated.

After this, Zhimomi, along with the then chief of the NSCN-K army, Khole Konyak, left Khaplang and the two then formed the NSCN-U on June 7, 2011. This faction entered into a ceasefire agreement with the Indian government on April 27, 2012.

According to Zhimomi, a number of insurgent groups from Assam and Manipur were with Khaplang and these groups together have formed a new organisation to fight the "common enemy", that is India.

Asked whether it was politics or money that was making Khaplang do what he was doing, the NSCN-U general secretary said: "I can say money because economically Khaplang was in such a horrible condition that it was ULFA (United Liberation Front of Asom) and other groups who paid him for sustenance and survival. And he let his people from Burma (Myanmar) to work as porters for ULFA and other revolutionaries and collected money for it."

Coming to the framework agreement for a peace accord that the Indian government signed with the NSCN (Isak-Muivah) last month, he painted a bleak picture, saying that the Naga people have been kept in the dark from the entire process.

The NSCN-U on Tuesday backed out from the framework agreement between the Indian government and the NSCN (I-M).

"Now the government of India is also contradicting its own policy and principle. They say that they (India) are ready to solve any kind of problem though dialogue and negotiations and, at the same time, they say the territorial boundaries will not be changed," Zhimomi said.

"Unfortunately, (Thuingaleng) Muivah happens to be from Manipur and the government of India is using Muivah as the chief interlocutor to solve the Naga problem, whereas the Nagas of Nagaland have been kept in the dark."

"Whatever solution is brought about by Muivah, I am very doubtful that Naga people will accept it," he said.

IANS

 

[Hindustani78]

Map Courtesy: Namrata Goswami, Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis


The Mizoram Accord was historic because it is highly rare for a state (any state) to negotiate a peace treaty with an armed group that clearly wants secession. Even more importantly, it was in the state’s best interests to come across as tough while dealing with insurgent threats. Pu Laldenga was a hard act to follow. On March 2, 1966, he had declared himself the head of the rebel government in Mizoram and his troops had overrun three Assam Rifles posts in Aizawl, Champhai and Lunglei districts. This was called Operation Jericho. In the Lok Sabha, Gurzari Lal Nanda, then Home Minister, asked for “stern action”, which commenced on March 7, 1966, in the form of a two-column assault of Indian army troops on Aizawl. A week later, following the aerial bombing of Aizawl, “order” was re-established.

Since 1966, the Indian government had been trying to make peace with the Mizo leadership. Talks failed in 1966 because Laldenga would not agree to an unconditional surrender. In 1978 the peace process broke down after a period of President’s Rule because Laldenga did not win the State elections that year. He was defeated by Brig. T Sailo, an Indian army man who floated the Mizoram People’s Conference. Following Laldenga’s electoral loss, the MNF stepped up its activities again. However, in 1986 the sitting Chief Minister Lal Thanhwala from the Indian National Congress stepped down to pave the way for Laldenga and accepted the post of deputy chief minister. This was not technically written down in the Mizoram Accord. Making Laldenga the Chief Minister was strategic and done outside the bounds of the Accord.

I have traced here a brief history of the Mizo Accord to be able to adequately reflect on the current framework agreement the Indian government has initiated with the NSCN-IM. The Mizo case gives us a comparative context. First, the Mizo Accord worked because strong sub-tribal identities amongst the Mizos were effectively diminished during colonial times. 1 So the Mizo’s were a more cohesive group. Second, there were no competing insurgent groups in Mizoram. Therefore, the signal to the Indian state was clear. They knew exactly who to sign the pact with. Third, the counterinsurgency campaign in Mizoram was extremely destructive and had led to the strategic exhaustion of the insurgent group. Finally, Laldenga never backed down on all his demands. He only scaled them down from outright secession to accepting autonomy within the bounds of the Indian Union.

All of these points have immense bearing when we set out to think about the current Naga peace process. In Nagaland sub-tribal loyalties are strong and these have been reflected time and again in the manner in which several insurgent groups have emerged. The NSCN-IM is a Tangkhul Naga dominated group. Tangkhul Nagas are mostly concentrated in the hill districts of Manipur, hence not technically in Nagaland.

I want to focus here on the complexities of peace making in Nagaland. This is not to draw away from the optimism that Modi’s framework agreement is generating. The purpose here is to add a note of caution and make an argument that unless all Naga insurgent groups are reckoned with as equals by the Indian government, a peace process may allow for a limited peace with only one group, but will not ensure peace for all of Nagaland. As the Mizo case has revealed, the state needs a clear leadership to pact with. While the NSCN-IM does provide this, it has also been increasingly seen as having rolled back on its promise of a united Nagalim.

My research demonstrates that in Nagaland, almost every time the Indian state has negotiated with one insurgent group, a faction within that group has broken off and become a separate insurgent group. Let me demonstrate this more adequately.

The National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) emerged from a factional split in the Naga National Council (NNC) in 1975 when the NNC signed the Shillong Accord and was accused of having “sold out” to the Indian government. In 1980, Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu formally announced the establishment of the NSCN. 2 In 1988, the NSCN split once more with the Khaplang faction emerging leading to two competing groups – NSCN-IM and NSCN-K. During an interview I conducted with an army officer, a former negotiator with the NSCN revealed that the split in the NSCN was engineered by Indian intelligence so that Muivah and Swu would have an effective counterweight. 3

However, the two factions signed a ceasefire in 1999. 4 In 2011, the NSCN-Khaplang split into the NSCN-Khole-Kitovi (NSCN-KK), following differences on the issue of Naga reconciliation. Still later, the NSCN (K) has further split into the NSCN Reformation following differences over whether to abrogate the ceasefire with the Indian state.

If we trace the splits in the NSCN-IM we notice that with every round of negotiation with the Indian state at least one splinter group has emerged. Many of these groups have now been able to limit the NSCN-IM’s sphere of influence and have carved out their own. Also, factional infighting is on the rise with a competition for territorial supremacy between all the Naga factions—whether IM, K, KK, Reformation and also the NNC groups, which are also divided into several splinter groups.

The splits in the Naga resistance have worked in two broad ways. First, because the two other groups (NSCN-K and NSCN-KK) are smaller in number, the NSCN-IM with a substantial presence in Manipuri hill districts has been able to dominate the negotiations with the Indian government. However, because there are two other factions, the state does not possess a proper assessment of who should be negotiated with for ultimate peace since each group has its own unique support base. In the absence of clarity, the state has been signing ceasefires with the NSCN-IM and has encouraged a ceasefire between the NSCN-IM and the NSCN-K.

The first ceasefire was signed between the Indian government and the NSCN-IM in 1997. Following this, fatalities involving the military personnel declined. Figure 1 gives an account of this.

From the figure it is clear that what the ceasefires have managed to accomplish is merely a decline in the number of security force personnel killed. Civilian casualties peaked in 2008 after the ceasefire was extended indefinitely. Looking at the figures of insurgent deaths we can be reasonably certain that these were not caused by security force operations since the ceasefires indicate a cessation of hostilities. The insurgent deaths can be explained, however, by factional infighting between different NSCN groups. Following the rise of these splinter groups we also see a correlated rise in insurgent deaths in 2007, 2008 and 2012. Reports do indicate that the NSCN-IM did frequently kill members of the NSCN-K and we also know through local newspaper reports that battles between the NSCN-KK and NSCN-K are being fought regularly. The drop in killings in 2009 and 2010 was due to the Covenant of Reconciliation signed by the NSCN-K and the NSCN-IM and the NNC in June 2009. 5 The killings rose once more in 2011 as rivalries over leadership, which were also internecine in nature, asserted themselves.

The ceasefire agreements had originally placed an intense burden on the NSCN-IM. It was no longer allowed to fight the Indian state in Nagaland. Yet, as Kolas notes, the talks do allow Muivah and Swu to earn a place in aboveground politics as natural heirs to the peace process. 6 This is being seen in the talks surrounding the current Naga framework agreement, of which the full text is not yet publicly available.

However, there are several issues that have not been considered in this process of framing peace. First, by negotiating with only the NSCN-IM for peace, other stakeholders have been pointedly ignored in this process and the claims of the NSCN-IM as political frontrunners is being legitimised. The sitting Naga parliament and its members were not party to the deal. Neither were any of the other insurgent groups. This presents a very specific problem as today’s conflicts rarely involve the two traditional actors - the state and its adversary. In fact, as the Nagaland case demonstrates, the multiplicity of conflict actors changes the possible trajectories that the peace process can take. It is premature to sue for peace with one conflict actor while ignoring the local history of all other conflict actors and how they are embedded in the mechanism of conflict.

Second, the onus of bringing everyone on board with the agreement now lies with the NSCN-IM. This is a herculean task since at the core issue of the Naga resistance is the idea of Nagalim. Greater Nagalim is a territorial concept that includes hill districts of Manipur, bordering areas of Myanmar and also a small part of Arunachal Pradesh.

If the NSCN-IM is agreeing to a settlement, it probably has had to back down on the demand for Greater Nagalim since under no circumstances would the Indian state be able to guarantee its fulfilment. It cannot grant parts of Manipur to Nagaland as Nagalim because there are other non-Naga tribes that inhabit the hills and have been resisting the Tangkhul domination of the hills for at least two decades. It also cannot seize territories of other countries and turn them into Nagalim. So this demand remains unmet. Can the NSCN-IM similarly convince the other insurgent groups, especially those that operate in Myanmar to give up the idea of Nagalim? The possibility seems far-fetched unless considerable political incentives are thrown into the mix to bring them into the electoral fold and award them some power above-ground.

Third, the issue that needs to be considered most seriously is what impact this Accord will have on Manipur. Manipur is another complicated ballgame where the insurgencies in the hill districts amongst the Kukis have risen specifically in opposition to the NSCN-IM and Tangkhul domination. Any sign that the Indian state favours the NSCN-IM is typically interpreted by these groups as going against their interests. Simply speaking, being friendly with the NSCN-IM in particular, sends a negative signal to resistance groups in Manipur’s hill districts, especially since the Indian state has not been able to effectively protect non-Naga tribes in Manipur from the NSCN-IM.

IV

The Indian government’s intentions may be positive, but it is prudent to think of other possible political outcomes that may affect lasting peace in Nagaland. A way forward would be to think of negotiating with all insurgent groups as equals, instead of privileging one. It would also be a good idea to keep the sitting elected representatives of the Naga parliament within this process. The Indian state also needs to ensure that internecine wars between the different groups cease by convincing them to follow through with arms and ammunition surrenders and needs to build a proper framework of integration for all groups, their leaders and cadres. Essentially, the state needs to ensure that peace is not signed on paper, but is in fact, institutionalised.

* This piece is based on the author's PhD research work for her dissertation titled, “Countering Insurgency: Strategies of the Indian State”, to be submitted to the University of California, Berkeley.