My attention is drawn to the statement of Naga Hoho that appeared in local papers on July, 30, 2020 which scripted about a representation written to the Prime Minister of India by Naga Hoho on 28th July, 2020. I am not advising the Naga Hoho to remain in low profile for being in its lowest ebb today due to its mandatory question, and yet those few people manning Naga Hoho are supposed to know themselves without someone reminding them of what is their height and their weight. The existing Naga Hoho is not owned by all the Naga tribes and therefore whatever it does and says are neither the collective opinion nor the decision of all concern. Nevertheless, I agree with them when the Naga Hoho has expressed its impatience over the delay in concluding the political negotiations into a solution saying that “…no tangible solution is emerging….” by way of urging the GOI to expedite the process.
Whereas, the following points raised by Naga Hoho deserves reaction. Firstly, when the Naga Hoho challenges that that there is no “progress in the political talk” even after 5 years of signing the Framework Agreement in 2015 between the NSCN(IM) and the GOI. Whereas, the ground realities are that not only the NSCN(IM) but the Working Committee (WC) of NNPGs too has been having political negotiation with the GOI and had signed similar agreement with the GOI called the Preamble agreement on 17.11.2017. The Honorable Governor and Interlocutor have had the requisite rounds of intensive negotiations with both the WC, NNPGs and the NSCN(IM) during the last few years. Eventually, both the groups of the Naga negotiators had their final sitting with the Interlocutor on 31.10.2019 in which all the negotiators have agreed to resolve the negotiations into a solution. However, due to the interception of the ongoing pandemic, the resumption of the follow up meetings were delayed for obvious reasons. Meanwhile, it is encouraging to come across that the talks have resumed between the Interlocutor with the WC, NNPGs on 14.7.2020. Similar talk with NSCN(IM) was deferred, though scheduled, due to the sickness of its chief negotiator as learnt from press media. Can the enumerated developments as above be construed as no ‘progress’ or as falsified account by Naga Hoho? Does Naga Hoho have better options for progressive talk to be suggested to the negotiating parties than what has been so far the nature of negotiations? If physical negotiation in camera is branded as not progressive, will inconclusive theoretical negotiation be taken as positively progressive?
Whereas, the Nagas have given our consent to the Naga negotiators to pursue the political solution through negotiation in the greater interest of the Nagas. Whereas, we, the spectators, the Naga Hoho officials along with the public are watching the negotiation developments sitting on the gallery. What I understand is that the process of nitty gritty, such as, presentation of points by the negotiators and the follow up debates on the given issues and the tussle between the two parties, the Nagas and the GOI, to come to a consensus will hardly attract the attention of the Naga public. The center of attraction will be the actual resolution that could finally evolve out of the process of negotiation. Such resolution can only emerge when both the parties have descended at the end to adopt such resolution. The final resolution cannot be expected to be a result of coercion or of duress. Following which no negotiating party can neither claim the exclusive credit nor can disown any discredit should it arises post solution.
Secondly, and I quote “With the appointment of R.N. Ravi as the Governor, it was hoped to expedite the peace process. Instead, he is breaking the hard-earned trust and faith of the people and rendering the 23 years of negotiation meaningless by smearing the Naga history and also the political groups with whom the GOI is engaged in a negotiation, it alleged.” Unquote. No matter how the Naga Hoho has tried to discredit and indict the Interlocutor, it may not necessarily distract his attention believing that he is focused. Yet, it is too early for the Naga Hoho to draw conclusion despite the emergence of certain contours as though the negotiations have met death end. None of the 3 parties cannot afford to make a mockery of the 31st October, 2019 commitment. Therefore, the above quoted statement is found to be more of emotional than of rational. If Naga Hoho at all claims itself to be a facilitator, any of its statements pertaining to political negotiations which are technical and sensitive, it must commensurate the status of a facilitator.
Thirdly, again I quote, “….that a leader who can translate the Indo-Naga negotiation into an honorable solution was the need of the hour.” Unquote. This implies that the present Interlocutor has to be replaced as demanded by the Naga Hoho from the Prime Minister of India. This demand is highly debatable. The opinions of the Naga negotiators are crucial and therefore to be sought first on the said issue. Busybodies may not meddle in such vital matters lest so authorized by competent authorities. Creating bad blood will only boomerang against ourselves than against others.
Does Naga Hoho sincerely and committedly stand for political solution out of the ongoing negotiations? I hope Naga Hoho genuinely desires for political solution. I do hope Naga Hoho does not play double standard game to obstruct the solution? If so, the Naga Hoho must not try to fish out of troubled waters but to have positive attitude and take positive initiatives whenever it involves.
As for me as an ordinary citizen of Nagaland, I am out and out for political solution out of the prevailing opportunity. I always appreciate the much positive developments and progress so far being made under the able leadership of the Interlocutor and Honorable Governor R. N. Ravi whom I believe is determined to conclude the transactions into its logical end. Once again, I am reiterating that something better is better than nothing.
Disclaimer: Your Page will carry readers’ unplugged contributions. None of the features will be edited but the Editor reserves the right to withhold contributions considered inflammatory or libelous.