NSCN (I-M) Seeks Third-Party Intervention in Naga Conflict, Threatens Armed Resistance

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• Naga Insurgency
• Naga Peace Accord

Why in News?

The Isak-Muivah faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN I-M) has requested third-party intervention to resolve the longstanding Naga political issue with the Indian government.

Accusing the Centre of betraying the 2015 Framework Agreement, NSCN (I-M) warns it may resume armed resistance if this proposal is denied.

The group asserts that the Centre reneged on commitments to recognize a separate Naga flag and constitution, essential for honoring the Naga people’s unique history and "shared sovereignty."

Naga Insurgency

• Background:
  • The British annexed Assam in 1826, and in 1881, the Naga Hills too became part of British India.
  • The Naga National Council (NNC) was formed in April 1946 to carry out social and political upliftment of the Nagas.
  • After the return of the radical leader of Naga cause, Angami Zapu Phizo, from Burma in 1947, the faction of NNC demanding full impendence grew strong.
• Shillong Accord and the split of NNC
  • The Shillong Accord was signed in 1975 by Government of India with a section of the NNC leaders.
  • As part of the accord, the leaders agreed to abjure violence and work towards the solution of the Naga problem within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
  • It was opposed by Phizo, Isak Swu and Muivah. Later, Isak Swu and Muivah formed the "National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN)" in January 1980.
  • Later, NSCN split into two factions, namely NCSN (I-M) led by Isak & Muivah and NCSN (K) led by Khaplang.
• Demand for Greater Nagaland
  • The Nagas under NSCN (I-M) had various views for a new Nagaland.
  • One was an independent nation of Nagaland comprising the present Nagaland, the Naga inhabited areas of Manipur and Myanmar.
  • Another one was to integrate the Naga inhabited districts of Manipur with the state of Nagaland under the Indian Constitution.

Naga Peace Accord

• Background
  • Since 1997, NSCN (I-M) has been involved in negotiations with the Government of India and signed many ceasefire agreements.
• 2015 Framework Agreement (FA)
  • On August 3, 2015, the Centre signed a framework agreement with the NSCN (I-M) to resolve the Naga issue.
  • Both sides-maintained secrecy about its contents. Hence, the details of the agreements are not entirely clear. However, broad points included:
  • The government could go for devolution of more powers to Nagaland under provisions of Article 371 (A) of the Constitution of India.
  • The army of NSCN-IM will be absorbed in a new force to be raised on the lines of Home Guards.
  • It would involve more autonomy to Naga tribes living in Manipur.
  • The agreement, however, does not include physical integration of all Naga areas in terms of a boundary.
  • The agreement was only a framework, with many details still to be hammered out.
• Issues with Framework agreement
  • The issue of sovereignty
    • The Framework agreement contains some clauses on ‘sharing sovereign power’ which is being interpreted differently by both sides.
    • The NSCN now argues that according to the agreement, its sovereignty has to be retained.
    • Any final agreement should be for peaceful coexistence of the two sovereign powers. This is not accepted by the Government.
  • Poor draft of the framework agreement
    • The wordings of the FA are vague, leaving for both sides to interpret the deal according to their own convenience.
    • E.g., FA at one point says, “Inclusive peaceful co-existence of the two entities sharing sovereign power”.
  • Issue of separate flag and constitution
    • NSCN(IM) contends that the idea of “sharing sovereign power” and “co-existence of the two entities” means:
    • Naga people will be entitled to their own national flag and constitution.
    • The FA was signed in 2015, when special status of Jammu and Kashmir existed.
    • However, the situation changed after scrapping of Article 370 and hence Centre cannot agree to such a demand.
  • Smaller groups such as Naga National Political Group (NNPGs) got strengthened
    • Another obstacle in the talks was that smaller groups such as NNPGs got strengthened during the tenure of previous interlocutor N Ravi.
    • He used the strategy of dividing the groups by giving more prominence to the smaller groups.
    • This annoyed the larger groups such as NSCN(IM) and they stayed away from the talks.
  • Release of the copy of the sensitive Framework Agreement
    • In August 2020, NSCN-IM released a copy of the sensitive Framework Agreement. This reduced the trust between the negotiating parties.
  • Trust deficit between the then Governor of Nagaland and NSCN
• The group accused the then Nagaland Governor N Ravi, an interlocutor, of deleting a keyword.
  • In November 2017, Ravi signed an agreement with seven groups who had come together under the banner of the NNPGs.
  • This did not include the NSCN (IM), which considers itself the principal representative of Naga aspirations.
  • As a result, NSCN (IM) accused Ravi of attempting to “segregate the Naga civil society”.
  • Later, R N Ravi resigned as interlocutor for the Naga peace talks.

Q.1. What is the NSCN (I-M)’s primary demand from the Indian government?

The NSCN (I-M) seeks recognition of a separate Naga flag and constitution as part of the 2015 Framework Agreement. They argue this is essential to honor Naga sovereignty and avoid further armed conflict.

Q.2. Why does NSCN (I-M) propose third-party mediation?

NSCN (I-M) proposes foreign mediation to resolve the deadlock, believing it can ensure the Framework Agreement is honored. Without this, they warn of resuming armed resistance against India.

News: NSCN (I-M) seeks third-party intervention to break talks deadlock | Indian Express | Indian Express