Playing with words and more : Studying GoI-IM peace talk
- Sangai Express Editorial :: November 25 , 2013 -

From playing with terms, it seems to have morphed to playing with words.

So from sovereignty to Greater Nagalim to Supra State to Alternative Arrangement, the ongoing political dialogue between the IM group of the NSCN and the Government of India has come to, "In essence, the best case outcome would be a deal which creates an institutional mechanism to give Naga communities across the region full recognition and rights, but without redrawing State boundaries."

This is from the respected newspaper, The Hindu, quoting a senior Government official under anonymity.

In more than one way, in one sweeping statement, the official, obviously toeing the line of the Government of India came close to stating that the Nagas spread across the States of Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam have not been granted the recognition due to them and of course have been denied their rights.

Nothing can more ludicrous than this.

Misgovernance, there are a plenty, especially in Manipur and in the process it is not only the Nagas of Manipur who have been denied their rights but all ethnic groups and communities settled here.

Singling out a single community is dangerous politics.

The more than sixteen years of peace parley between the NSCN (IM) and the Government has been held under a cloud of secrecy, but what has come out in the public domain is the process in which the negotiations have been proceeding.

From a third country to be the host for the political dialogue, it has now shifted to New Delhi.

At the level of the Prime Minister of India. Officially this still stands true, but it is interesting to note that the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office or any of its senior officials being involved in the talk has not been mentioned as warranted. From a political interlocutor in the person of Oscar Fernandes it has now come to a former bureaucrat as the interlocutor, Mr RS Pandey.

Political jugglery, necessitated by the sensitivity of the talk or Delhi trying to dilute the importance of the negotiation ?

It could be either way, but it is interesting to see that apart from the word play that has been in vogue since 1997, not much headway seems to have been made and herein lies the crunch.

The stand of the Government of Manipur has been consistent, though it has so far not deemed it wise to go beyond protecting the territorial integrity of Manipur.

Will a model, which grants financial and political autonomy to the Naga inhabited areas of Manipur, without breaking up its geographical area, be acceptable to the State Government and more importantly to the people ?

The Sangai Express has already referred to this point earlier.

A State with a geographical area of a little over 22 thousand square kilometres and with the hills constituting more than 80 percent of the total area, this is Manipur.

Will granting political and financial autonomy to more than 80 percent of a State make sense, while more than 70 percent of the population are settled in less than 20 percent of its area ?

This is a question which Delhi should consider with the merit it deserves.

The Bodoland Autonomous Territorial District Council can work in a place like Assam, for it represents just a fraction of the total geographical area of that State.

On the other hand, if at all autonomy is to be granted to any part of Manipur, then it should be the valley area, given the fact that it is just a fraction of the total geographical area of the State, but which is home to more than 70 percent of the population.

This obviously may sound far fetched, but this is an observation to drive home the point that the question of granting autonomy of any sort should always come along with the size of its geographical area.

Let the talk proceed, but certain points such as the ones mentioned here should not be forgotten.