'Supra State' offer in lieu of Nagalim in GOI-NSCN-IM Peace Talk Timeline
- Part 1 -

Aheibam Koireng Singh *

Abstract

On 14 November 2011, the erstwhile Seven Sisters Post in its news report leaked that the GoI envisages a final settlement with a NSCN rebel faction led by Issak-Muivah and the GoI. The Prime Minister as well as the Union Home Minister had rejected the report as baseless. But when the Seven Sisters Post stand by its report, outrightly rejecting the denial by the GoI of having any such proposal, there were virtually no defense by the later. The report exposed that the GoI had rejected the NSCN's demand for Nagalim stating that it is not possible in the absence of political consensus from all concerned as boundary of the states can only be altered with the approval of the Legislative Assembly of the respective states.

The GoI while convincing the NSCN-IM to do away with its aspired territory of Nagalim had in lieu of it offered a Supra-state body as the "second best option" for ensuring some kind of cultural integration of the Naga areas of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam with state of Nagaland exercising authority over cultural, social and customary practices of Nagas. This pan Naga supra state body will be in the recognition of the distinct identity of the Nagas. Despite having the same party (with the Centre) in power the said proposal for supra state body was also opposed by the respective government in all the three states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur. Political parties, community based organizations, and many prominent personalities in the region also have voiced their opposition to the supra state proposal.

Soon after, the issue of supra state for Nagas was eclipsed by the demand of creating a separate state of "Frontier Nagaland". What can be gauged from the melee surrounding the issue of supra state is that any solution in isolation is not going to be durable and bound to generate conflicts. If a solution is to be sought, it should not be in part but in whole involving all the communities in the region.

INTRODUCTION

The tribes in Manipur who afterwards began to be known as belonging to the Naga fold did not know the term 'Naga' as late as 1940s. Noted Tangkhul writer, RR Shimray while recalling his boyhood experience when he and his father were called 'Naga' by a retreating Japanese troop who entered their house, stated that, they told the Japanese troops that they were Tangkhuls and not Naga.

The cooption and embracing of tribes in Manipur by the NNC began for the first time in 1947 when it said, "the Naga tribes are not a single tribe, but a whole group of them. Angami, Rengma, Sengma, Tangkhul, Mao, Sangtam, Zemi, Kabui, etc., each different from the others in custom and dialect, but all closely related in forming a distinct block". So, Tangkul, Mao and Kabui were the first to be identified as Nagas among the non-Kuki tribes in Manipur by the underground led Nagaisation campaign spearheaded from Nagaland. However, no tribes of Manipur took part in the plebiscite of 1951, which was considered as the bed-rock of Naga independence movement.

In 25 January 1952, the Nagas in Nagaland under the banner of NNC launched Civil Disobedience Movement. As a part of it, the first Indian elections to the parliament and the Electoral College of 1952 were successfully boycotted. On the other hand, in Manipur, all the ethnic groups took active part in the said elections and a Tangkhul was elected from the outer parliamentary constituency of Manipur. The Naga insurgency started in 1956. In response to it, the Government of India (GoI) created the Naga Hills Teunsang Area (NHTA) in 1957. Later, the GoI made an agreement with the Naga Peoples' Convention (NPC) in 1960 and subsequently formed the sixteenth state of Indian republic in 1963 to be named as Nagaland.

The extension of Indo-Naga ceasefire in 1964 in its three hill subdivisions namely, Mao, Tamenglong and Ukhrul was the beginning of the legitimization of the Naga ethnic territory. It is, however, worthy of note that many of the prominent leaders of the tribes who were later to be identified as Nagas struck to the stand of remaining with Manipur instead of acceding to Nagaland. The All Tribal Delegation went to Delhi in May 1970 for demanding statehood of Manipur, which included four prominent Naga leaders.

They are as follows:

1. Mr. Daiho, Minister, Manipur Assembly (1948); 2. Mr. Stephen Angkang, Former President (Tangkhul Long); 3. Mr. K. Kalanlung, President, Zeliangrong Regional Council (ZRC); 4. Mr. Shoukhothang Ashon, Former MLA

The Naga ethnic armed groups engaged either in consolidating or expanding Naga integration are compartmentalized on tribal lines. In a GoI report brought out in the mid 90s of the passing twentieth century , there were four outfits, namely,

1. National Socialist Council of Nagaland, Khaplang Faction; 2. Naga National Council- Adino faction (NNC-A); 3. National Socialist Council of Nagalim – Isak and Muivah faction (NSCN-IM); Naga National Council – Khadao faction (NNC-K)

In addition, National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Unification was formed by several cadres who broke away from the NSCN-IM led by its one-time 'home minister' Azheto Chopey on 23 November 2007. NSCN (Khole-Kitovi) faction was formed on June 7, 2011. The faction was formed by a dissenting group of cadres of NSCN-Khaplang faction (NSCN-K) under the leadership of Khole Konyak and Kitovi Zhimoni. In recent times also, many Naga armed groups which doesn't toe the line with the dictats and whims of the NSCN-IM such as Naga National Liberation Authority (NNLA), Manipur Naga Revolutionary Front (MNRF), and Zeilangrong United Front (ZUF) having their own respective territorial control also came into existence

The NNC-K was later merged with the NSCN-IM. The membership of the NSCN-K mainly belongs to the Ao and Konyak tribes of Nagaland. The NNC-A cadres were drawn mainly from Angami and Chakhesang tribes. The NNC-K largely belongs to the Lotha tribe. The membership of NSCN-IM consists mainly of Tangkhul and Sema tribes. In the midst of these half a dozen outfit, it is pertinent to contemplate whether NSCN-IM carries the mandate of the Naga people.

The Naga National Assembly convened by Mr. Isak Chishi Swu, Vice President NNC, and Mr. Th. Muivah, General Secretary NNC, rejected the Shillong Accord as a sell-out and condemned the signatories of the Accord as traitors in October 1975. National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) was formed in January 1980 by the activists of NNC/Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) regrouping on the Burmese side of the border, with the declared objective of carrying forward the struggle for Naga national independence.

By the beginning of 1988, there were serious differences within the leadership of the NSCN which ultimately led to its split into two- one led by Isak and Muivah and the other led by Khaplang. Apart from NSCN-IM, other armed Naga groups are not giving too much importance and emphasis to the inclusion of 'Naga inhabited areas' of Manipur, Nagaland and Assam to proposed Nagalim.

With the NSCN-IM seemingly abandoning the agenda of sovereign Nagaland ever since it enter into peace agreement with the GoI, Eastern Nagaland, to be formed by dismembering the territory of Eastern Myanmar, which earlier constitutes the inalienable part of sovereign Nagaland no longer features in and is conveniently avoided in their demand. In connection with it, Subhir Bhaumik, Editor of Seven Sister Post once commented, "If Eastern Nagaland can go, what is so holy about Southern Nagaland."

Onwards from the early part of the 90s of the passing twentieth century, Naga organizations operating in Manipur both overground and underground have intensely been engaged in ethnic homogenization of territory in Manipur Hills through forced population transfer, mass annihilation, and cooption. V. Sumi and K. Timothy (1997) listed 38 numbers of tribe living in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Eastern Myanmar as belonging to the Naga nation. Out of the said 38 tribe, 18 tribes are in Manipur. In the early part of 2002, the NSCN (IM) suggests a number of 43. Instances of tribes being encompassed within the Naga fold is still an ongoing process. The simple example of it is the Peace Process Annual Calendar, 2008, Ministry of Information and Publicity, GPRN, in which the number was expanded to 68.

A Ceasefire with NSCN-IM was declared on 25 July 1997 by the GoI to begin peace talk between the two. The apprehension of the likely dismemberment of Manipur's territory caused by it led to the staging of massive rally at the heart of Imphal city participated by approximately 4.5 Lakh populace. The Kuki-Naga clash which rocked the entire state was also still ongoing at that time. One Committee for Restoration of Normalcy formed by coming together the 'apex body' of the Kuki and the Naga, the Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM) and the United Naga Council (UNC) with a patronage of the state government was also there.

However, CRN with few noticeable successes had to be prematurely wind up as KIM no longer wanted to associate with UNC after the later had resolved to welcome and endorse the Ceasefire Agreement between the GoI and NSCN-IM on 25 July 1997. UNC, in its emergency meeting held at TTA Conference Hall at Ukhrul on 22 August 1997, resolved to insist that the four districts of Manipur namely, Senapati, Tamenglong, Chandel and Ukhrul should be included within the purview of the ceasefire agreement and the GoI-NSCN-IM dialogue.

It further resolved that any Member of Parliament (MP) and MLA from amongst the communities affiliated to UNC should be made to resign if he or she does not act and speak towards positive implementation of the above resolutions. This demand of the UNC was termed by the KIM as the Second Quit Notice for the disintegration of Manipur. The KIM, in the same press release, also speculated that civil war will be an inevitable consequence if the GoI's 'Naga Appeasement Policy' adversely affects the territorial integrity of the whole Northeastern region.

To be continued ..