The peace talks between the Government of India (GOI) and NSCN (IM) have been further discredited with the Naga National Council (NNC), the original Naga political organization founded by AZ Phizo and now led by his daughter, Adino Phizo, declaring, on the 55th Anniversary of ‘Naga Independence’ on 14th August, that ‘the NSCN (IM) has no mandate, no history and does not represent Nagaland’. The NNC was marginalized after the Shillong Accord of 1975 and is faction-ridden, but the declaration further brings to light the sharp divisions within the Naga polity. This is apart from the vehement condemnation of the talks by the NSCN – Khaplang faction. There is little that the GOI can do here as this is an internal matter for the Nagas to sort out. However, the GOI could perhaps form a common platform of these factions as only such an inclusive process can guarantee a lasting settlement.

     The question of Sovereignty is too contentious to be addressed at the present juncture. It falls outside the competence of the GOI, given its implications for territories beyond India’s borders. Apparently, the NSCN (IM) leadership has understood this reality, which is a good sign so that the talks can now proceed to address meaningful issues. The Center’s interlocutor, K. Padmanabhaiah, in an interview with the Rediff news portal published on 2nd July 2002, stated that the Nagas (read NSCN - IM) are seeking a solution within the Indian Union (not within the Indian Constitution). This implies the willingness of the NSCN-IM leadership to accept a solution which can be accommodated by certain amendments in the Constitution. This deserves to be seriously considered, and efforts should be made to get all sections of the Nagas to accept such a solution. The desperation for peace among the Nagas across the various divides is writ large after decades of conflict and could be gainfully channelized to support this objective.

     The Naga demand for inclusion of all Naga inhabited areas in neighbouring States into a future Nagalim can be effected under the Constitution. However, the States affected cannot be expected to take such territorial aggrandizement lightly. Arunachal Pradesh values its territorial integrity, so this issue figured in the Independence Day speech of Chief Minister Mukut Mithi. Similar sentiments prevail in Assam. This issue assumes greater complexity in Manipur where the territorial implications of the Naga demand, besides affecting the integrity of the State’s territory, draws a highly emotive reaction from the dominant Meiteis, besides threatening the interests of the Kuki population who co-inhabit these areas with various Naga tribes on a fifty- fifty basis. The ethnic animosity between the two communities remains high following the NSCN (IM) led ethnic cleansing drive on the Kukis between 1992-1995. An alternative approach to this complex territorial issue could be to leave out the question of mergers and encroachments altogether, and to approach community interests through devolutionary mechanisms. For instance, the hill districts of Manipur can be provided a comprehensive and sustainable autonomy by redrawing district boundaries on ethnic lines. This will solve the problem of territorial contention between the concerned States and could effectively mitigate the ethnic tension between the two hill communities, whilst also addressing Naga interests. Similar arrangements can be worked out in relation to the Naga inhabitants in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam.

     Mutual coexistence and peaceful harmony are ideals to be cherished in a democracy with the range of diversity as found in India. It can only be successfully promoted when the diverse communities in the country deal with each other from a position of equality and mutual respect. Makers of policies and molders of the country’s future should appreciate this basic premise to formulate policies that heal the wounds of the nation and its people. Given the alienated state of the northeast, constitutionally viable devolutionary instruments should be utilized to make the people feel that the government is their own, by them and for them. On its part, the NSCN (IM) leadership should accept certain basic tenets of peaceful coexistence, accepting the realities of the present, and not stubbornly press for utopian dreams.

     In a nutshell, the Center-NSCN (IM) talks can succeed if the parties review their rigid stands on contentious issues and, more importantly, adopt a wholesome approach to the complex problem of insecurity and discontent of the communities and States by devolving the practice of Self Governance to the grassroots and respecting group rights.