If the frequent claims of the Prime Minister's Principal Interlocutor, K. Padmanibaiah to settle the Naga Issue 'within the Union' or ' Within the Constitution of India' is any indicator, GOI is not in a hurry to solve the protracted Indo-Naga conflict.

In Indian context the terms within the Union or the Constitution is a vague political motion which can also mean almost nothing. I feel therefore by repeating this intransigent phrases by the GOI, she is saying nothing substantial, at least at the moment. Maybe she still wants to in the words of Shyam Dutta, 'wait and watch'.

The Constitution of India is invariably subject to change by ammendments. Article 2 of the Indian Constitution for example provides Parliament to admit into the Union or establish new states on such terms and conditions as it sees fit.

India's membership to the Commonwealth is based on an extra Constitutional contratual arrangement entered an terminal at will. So, trying to limit the Indo-Naga within a frame work which is dynamic and flexible is absurbed, technically speaking and lacks sagacity.

The terms within the union of India was used as the operative concept to mean that a polical solution much be on the basis of Nagas acceptance of union with India or to quote the Nagaland Peace Mission, 'the Nagas participation in the union of India in their own violations'.

It is also pertainent to note here that Sikkim was admited as an "associate state" without being a member of the Union of India in 1974 by inserting a new article 2-A by the Constitution ( Thirty-fifth Ammendment) Act. 1974.

Therefore, these legal notions should not become the political impidement in the present Indo-Naga Peace process. Instead of desperate attempts to limit the talks in a precint, the negotiating parties should rather invest time to define the new future relationships.

Priority needs to be given to the substances instead of the form or status. Casting and recasting the desire, aspirations, expediencies, needs, neccessities etc. base on Indo-Naga experiences, the talks are expected to deliver a mosiac political pattern and to which giving a clincher is but corollary.

India's relationship with other entities is provided in Article51 of Indian Constitution. It requires GOI to promote International Peace and Security, maintain just and hounorable relations between nations... and to encourage settlement of International despute by arbitration.

India's membership in the UN, NAM, SAARC etc. are manifestation of this constitutional desire for peace and harmonous relationship with other nations. While on the other hand Naga's have realised that there are many non-legal and moral limitation on soverignty.

The present International conditions of inter dependence and the neccessity to obey the International Law and obligations effect the obsolute sovereignty of the nation. For the Nagas, Sovereignty lies with the people and therefore, an inter dependence relationship of matual benefit of both the negotiating parties was felt desirable.

Naga's Chief negotiator, Th. Muivah, General Secy of NSCN (IM) had in his interview with BBC for this reason said that Naga wants to have a federal relationship with India. This is not a new move though. A loose federal relationship between the Nagas and India had also been moted before in the sixties by the Nagaland Peace Mission.

Even in recent times a federal movement was launched in Assam in the 1994 comprising of about 50 movements in India including Akali Dal to assert their "voluntary rights to association and secession".

India basic interest in Naga areas is her border. Her aim was stragetic and defensive. But of late with the emergence of many struggling people asserting their rigth to self determination India fears that any settlement with the Nagas on this line will encourage them and jeopardise the Integrity of India.

This fear is paramount today. At present GOI is also engaged in truce for dialoge with the Garos, ULFA, Bodos etc. The fear of setting a precedence is not without justification by any standard. But the bigger question is could these issue and problems be wished by sitting on it? By legal assimilation? No .

A creative solution is needed sooner. The need for a sincere and collective effort of both India and Naga people is needed like never before.

Since the negotiation itself is dynamic and has variables, what transpired on the negotiating table need to manifest on the ground back homeand what is happening on the ground should find expression in the political dialogue.

It is about responsibility and commitments and not just about relationship and power structures.

Solving the Indo-Naga issue could be a panacea and not a pandara box that India so fear to open.