With sovereignty and Naga integration demand dropped, so what’s left of the Framework Agreement?

Naga Republic News & Analysis

Union Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju on Saturday, April 7, uttered something that many people in Nagaland would have assumed by now — no to sovereignty or the redrawing of territory (Naga integration), two key demands of the NSCN (IM) since the peace process with India began more than twenty years back.

Although the NSCN (IM) has not explicitly mentioned these new development or changes in the peace process, Rijiju clearly said that the NSCN (IM) has dropped the “sovereignty” issue and the talks are going on within the framework of the Indian constitution.

The secrecy behind the Framework Agreement is not helping either with even stakeholders not knowing on what exactly is going on as far as finding an ‘honorable solution’ to the Naga issue goes. The only thing that the public was told about in the last twenty years was that the Naga peace process was ‘going in the right direction’.

However it does appear that the long held demands of the NSCN (IM) has been watered down to working for a solution within the Indian constitution. Also a valid question to ask is with the sovereignty and Naga integration demand dropped, what’s left of the Framework Agreement?

“So a framework agreement was signed….there the issue of sovereignty and some more issues which were there as part of their agenda…these were dropped. And so within the framework of the constitution of India the talks will progress…that was the framework agreement”, the Union Minister Kiren Rijiju pointed out while speaking to the media in Guwahati (listen to video clip below).

Reports also suggest that the NSCN-IM’s core demand – the creation of Nagalim or Greater Nagaland comprising all Naga-inhabited areas of the northeast – had been “set aside for now”. While special measures to accommodate Nagas living in Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh are on the cards, it is also reported that the accord will be “confined to Nagaland”.

On the other hand the NSCN (IM) has been repeatedly maintaining that the “Framework Agreement recognises the sovereign right of the Nagas” and also the Framework Agreement “has recognised the unique identity” and the history of the Nagas.

In the light of what Kiren Rijiju said, as mentioned earlier, now the question is whether the sovereignty and integration demand of the Naga group was part of the Framework Agreement and latter dropped or were they never part of the Framework Agreement in the first place.

“Bringing an honourable and acceptable solution to both parties, co-existence of the two entities and shared sovereignty of the two entities are mutually agreed, said Rh. Raising, Convenor of the Steering Committee, which is the highest decision making body of NSCN (IM). He was speaking in the “Joint Council Meeting on Indian and Burmese Colonialism” on October 6, 2017.

The NSCN (IM) has been all along saying that the “Framework Agreement recognises the sovereign right of the Nagas”.

“The Framework Agreement signed between the NSCN (IM) and government of India would give the Nagas maximum sovereign power to grow into a developed political people”, its General Secretary Thuingaleng Muivah had said during a recent event at Hebron in Nagaland.

Speaking at the council meeting of the NSCN (IM) at its Council Headquarters, Muivah had also said that the NSCN (IM) was strongly opposed to domination of one people by another because that amounted to roadblocks to peace and development.

The veteran NSCN (IM) leader, who had signed the Framework Agreement with the government of India in New Delhi in August 2015, also said that the political concept of NSCN (IM) was rooted in sovereign state and government.

It may be mentioned that while both the Government of India and the NSCN (IM) are signatories to the Framework Agreement, different interpretations have been put out in the public domain as reported in the media from time to time.

NSCN (IM) General Secretary Th. Muivah and Government of India Interlocutor RN Ravi shaking hands after the signing of the Framework Agreement on August 3, 2015 in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi

The Ministry of Information and Publicity (MIP) of the NSCN (IM) reportedly confirmed that three points have been made in the agreement. First is that the Union Government has recognised the unique history of the Nagas; secondly, there will be shared sovereignty in certain areas and thirdly, there will be peaceful co-existence between the ‘two entities’.

Interestingly the Union Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju, whether out of ignorance or as a matter of fact, never mentioned the NSCN (IM)’s repeated assertion of shared sovereignty or the existence of ‘two entities’.

A somewhat different interpretation of the Framework Agreement was mentioned in the current affairs weekly, Mainstream dated December 26, 2015. According to the publication, two aspects of the Framework Agreement have been made public—acceptance of the “uniqueness of Naga history and culture” by the Indian Government and the “acceptance of the primacy of the Indian Constitution by the NSCN-IM”.

“While Atal Behari Vajpayee had acknowledged the unique history of the Nagas in 2003, the NSCN-IM accepting the primacy of the Indian Constitution is a new development. It puts at rest the earlier ambiguities about the NSCN-IM’s position on the Indian Constitution”, stated the publication.

A statement issued by Muivah following the signing of the Framework Agreement said: “Better understanding has been arrived at and a framework agreement has been concluded basing on the unique history and position of the Nagas and recognising the universal principle that in a democracy, sovereignty lies with the people.”

However in the light of what Rijiju, the Union Minister of State has said: of the ‘sovereignty’ issue being dropped and talks going on within the framework of the Indian constitution, the NSCN (IM) and the other Naga Political Groups may have to clarify whether this is true and if not they should demand for the one page Framework Agreement to be made public.

Much before the Framework Agreement was signed; top Naga leaders had met on August 24-25, 2011 wherein it was affirmed to “work for the territorial integrity of all Nagas” and that “any interim arrangement of the political rights of the Nagas shall be outside of the purview of the Indian Constitution per se”.

This decision was signed on August 25, 2011 by Isak Chishi Swu, Th. Muivah, Gen (Retd) Khole Konyak, Kitovi Zhimomi, Brig (Retd) S Singnya and Zhopra Vero representing their respective organization.

A note issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on March 15, 2017 had termed the Framework Agreement as a ‘relevant document’ and pointing out that “details of the final settlement are being worked out within the parameters of the Framework Agreement”.

However by continuing to withhold its content, the signatories appear to be contradicting one another and ‘freely’ interpreting the Framework Agreement by way of public posturing and playing to their respective constituency.

With all parties expressing seriousness to resolve the Indo-Naga political issue, there is no harm to atleast disclose what exactly the Framework Agreement contains. How can the negotiators expect to bring out the full agreement or accord (when it is signed) in the public domain when it lacks even the confidence to make public what is essentially only a one page document!