Unity through disunity

It is difficult to ascertain what exactly is going through the mind of the Government of India’s representative and interlocutor, A.K. Mishra, as he navigates the ever-shifting landscape of Naga political issue. Each time he visits Nagaland, it appears that new factions emerge, adding another layer of complexity to an already intricate and frustrating process. The road to a Naga peace settlement has been long and fraught with delays. The previous interlocutor, R.N. Ravi-who later became the Governor of Nagaland-had made significant strides by securing two key agreements after being sworn-in as Interlocutor in 2014. The first was the Framework Agreement (FA) signed on August 3, 2015, with the NSCN (I-M), and the second was the Agreed Position (AP) signed on November 17, 2017, with an alliance of Naga groups led by the GPRN/NSCN (Unification). These two agreements were expected to be stepping stones toward a final, comprehensive solution-something that the Naga people had long yearned for. Ravi was hailed as the man of the moment in securing these two agreements within one year of being appointed. However after being appointed Governor in 2019, he was removed in 2021 when he fell foul of some powerful sections. Ravi, at one point, even set October 31, 2019 as deadline to close the chapter on unending talks. In 2021, he had declared in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly that all negotiations had been completed. However, Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio contradicted this claim, asserting that talks were still ongoing. This conflicting narrative left many wondering about the true status of the negotiations. In recent years, the number of Naga factions has multiplied at an alarming rate. From around a dozen Naga Political Groups (NPGs) in 2018, the number has now swelled to approximately 28 factions. There are now two WC,NNPGs and another alliance, the Naga National Political Alliance (NNPA) that have added to the complexity of the situation. This fragmentation makes it increasingly difficult to reach a unified agreement, as each faction brings its own set of demands and perspectives to the table. On the other hand, Nagaland’s state politicians, now clubbed together under the oppositionless government in the interest of Naga political solution, have instead of providing clarity, demanded that the government appoint a High-Level Interlocutor-preferably at the ministerial or political level-who has both the confidence and full mandate of the Government of India and one more empowered to expedite the peace process and push for a final resolution. However, amid all the demands, negotiations, and political maneuvering, the most pressing question remains: Who is responsible for the delay? A senior state politician had written that: “Those who were responsible for the removal of the Interlocutor Mr. RN Ravi are indeed solely responsible for the delay of the Naga political solution”. Now, A.K. Mishra has inherited the unenviable task of steering the process forward. His challenge is twofold: on one side, there is a group that insists talks have not yet concluded, while on the other, there are factions that demand an immediate solution based on one of the existing agreements. This impasse has led to a scenario that many had warned about years ago-that the longer the delay in finalizing a solution, the greater the risk of more splinter groups emerging. That warning has now become a reality.