An uncertain round

The firm stand of the Nagaland government against lifting the ban on the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (I-M) poses a threat to the talks in India with the Naga leaders.

THE proposed final round of peace talks in Shillong in October between the Central government and the underground Naga leaders Isaac Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah, who have for long been living in exile in Thailand, has only a slim chance of taking off, with Nagaland Chief Minister S. C. Jamir being opposed to lifting the ban imposed on the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN), of which Isaac is chairman and Muivah the general secretary. At the latest round of talks, held in Amsterdam in September, both Isaac and Muivah reportedly told the Centre's principal interlocutor, former Union Home Secretary K. Padmanabhaiah, that unless the Government of India lifted the ban they would not participate in any talks on Indian soil. The NSCN(I-M) was banned in November 1990 by the Chandra Shekhar government. The ban mattered little when the talks were held outside India in places such as Geneva, Zurich, Paris, Bangkok, Amsterdam and Osaka. But the lifting of the ban becomes necessary if the two rebels must return to their homeland for talks.

The NSCN(I-M) was the first underground militant organisation to respond to the P.V. Narasimha Rao government's peace offer. Several rounds of talks have taken place between representatives of the Government of India and the underground leaders. H.D. Deve Gowda, as Prime Minister, met Isaac and Muivah in Zurich in February 1997. Before Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee's meeting with the NSCN(I-M) leaders in Paris in November 1998, his emissary Swaraj Kaushal, former Mizoram Governor and a Supreme Court lawyer, opened a formal dialogue with them in June 1998 in Bangkok. Shortly after that Kaushal was replaced by Padmanabhaiah. Padmanabhaiah held at least six rounds of talks with the Naga leaders. Vajpayee again met Isaac and Muivah in Osaka in 2001.

The war of attrition between the Congress(I) government in Nagaland and the NSCN(I-M) has intensified with the administration seeking an extension of the ban on the organisation. Although it has dropped all the cases against Isaac and Muivah in order to facilitate their `safe passage' to India, Jamir is against the lifting of the ban. The cases pending against the two rebels include one relating to an armed attack on Jamir's convoy near Kohima in November 1999. Besides, there are arrest warrants pending against them, issued by the Guwahati High Court four months before the Centre and the NSCN(I-M) signed a ceasefire agreement on August 31, 1997, and sent to the Interpol by the Union Home Ministry. The Manipur government has, however, not withdrawn the three cases pending against the Naga rebels in the State.

IN a memorandum submitted on September 10 to Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister L.K. Advani, Jamir said the ban on the NSCN (I-M), under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, should continue. His demand assumes significance in the light of the fact that the final round of talks is proposed to be held for the first time on Indian soil. Moreover, the Centre is keen to complete the talks before the Assembly elections in Nagaland, which are due in February 2003.

According to informed sources, Jamir's plea has evoked extreme reactions from the NSCN(I-M), which argues that it is preposterous to ban an organisation with which the Centre is engaged in talks. At the very outset, Jamir was against involving the NSCN(I-M) alone in the talks, leaving out the other insurgent group operating in the State, the NSCN (Khaplang). In the memorandum to Advani, Jamir expressed the apprehension that a major clash might break out between the two factions, if a ban on only one of them was lifted. Moreover, with the intensification of the turf war between the NSCN factions in Zunheboto, which was declared a peace zone by the NSCN (I-M) three years ago, and the imposition of an indefinite economic blockade on August 28 by the Khaplang group, the general atmosphere in the State is not congenial to holding talks on Indian soil.

Another reason why Jamir sought an extension of the term of the ban on the NSCN(I-M) is the growing apprehension that the outfit will target his ministerial colleagues and party legislators once it is rid of the tag of "outlawed organisation''. He said that its cadres "have been personally visiting Cabinet members and legislators and threatening them with dire consequences if they did not withdraw from the government'' .

Similar allegations have been made by Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Mukut Mithi. Mithi has alleged that the NSCN(I-M), which has a strong base in the State, is hatching a conspiracy to dislodge him from power by directing all the 12 legislators from the Naga-dominated Tirap and Changlang districts to withdraw support to his government.

Highly-placed government sources said that NSCN(I-M) leaders "are today a lot more flexible than they were five years ago, when the ceasefire came into effect. They now want a political settlement within the Indian Union.'' That is one reason why the Naga leaders recently invited Mizoram Chief Minister Zoramthanga to Bangkok to attend a meeting in which a cross-section of Naga organisations took part. As a former leader of the Mizo National Front (MNF), Zoramthanga is reported to have provided key inputs to Muivah and Isaac on his experience with the peace accord that the MNF signed in.

Informed sources said that any Government of India-NSCN(I-M) agreement would "revolve around'' the political and constitutional demands that the insurgent outfit had made and which both government officials and Additional Solicitor-General Harish Salve had studied. The Centre has recognised the "uniqueness of the Naga situation'', indicating that it was prepared to concede some of the demands. It is another indication that both the Centre and the NSCN(I-M) are taking due care to arrive at an agreement, which would be qualitatively different from the previous two signed in 1960 (the Sixteen-Point Agreement) and in 1975 (the Shillong Accord), which failed to achieve their objectives.