From shared sovereignty to what?

Indeed, the political dialogue has traversed a long and tortuous journey.  Of course, we are referring to the political dialogue going on between the Government of India and NSCN-IM for the past 22 years and perhaps it is the longest running political dialogue between a sovereign country and a militant group. Till recently, the current of the political dialogue followed certain expected lines though little headway was achieved.  A landmark breakthrough was achieved when the two sides signed a Framework Agreement on August 3, 2015 which Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed as a historic accord. In spite of the initial euphoria generated by the Framework Agreement, the political dialogue still dragged on. Then came 2017 and the Government of India took seven other Naga militant outfits under the banner of the Working Group of Naga National Political Groups into the ambit of the political dialogue. While many hailed this move as a significant step towards taking all Naga militant groups on board the dialogue process, it also heralded a new dynamics of negotiation. Soon after, the NNPGs too became a dialogue partner and NSCN-IM lost its position of being the sole party mandated to negotiate with the Government of India on behalf of Naga people. Taking the NNPGs on board the dialogue process was a very significant step. This step sent an unmistakable message that NSCN-IM does not carry all the mandate of Naga people, thereby undermining its position of being the principal negotiator. At the same time, the Government of India successfully transformed the dialogue process into an inclusive process by taking along the NNPGs. No doubt, the dialogue process became an inclusive one after the NNPGs came into the picture. After the NNPGs joined the dialogue process, many observers felt that no section of the Naga society would be left out of the peace process and its final settlement.
Negotiation between Government of India on one side and Naga militant groups (NSCN-IM+NNPGs) on the other hand must expedite the dialogue process and bring it to a logical conclusion. But unfortunately this is not happening even though the Government of India is pushing hard for a solution. As manifested by their contradictory standpoints on signing a final settlement by October 31 and on the issue of separate flag and constitution, there is no synergy between NSCN-IM and NNPGs. While NSCN-IM has been refusing to sign any solution sans provisions for separate flag and constitution, the NNPGs are willing to deal with the same issue after signing an accord. What are rather bewildering are the media reports that the Government of India would sign a final deal with or without NSCN-IM. In such a scenario, NSCN-IM, the main rebel group with which the Government of India initiated the ongoing dialogue process would be left out in the cold. How NSCN-IM would react to or deal with such a scenario is anybody’s guess. If the Government of India is determined to seal a deal in the coming days even at the cost of excluding NSCN-IM, it is crystal clear that NNPGs would be brought to the centre stage. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that there is no meeting point between the Government of India and NSCN-IM on the latter’s demand for separate flag and constitution.  To break the deadlock, either of the two negotiating parties or both must concede something. If both the parties choose to stick to their guns, we fear the much hyped and long awaited solution may turn out to be another Shillong Accord. As far as we understand, the quest for separate flag and constitution are central to the NSCN-IM’s idea of shared sovereignty. With the twin demands now stand rejected, only time can tell which direction the rebel outfit will take.  At the same time, the Government of India must tread its path with utmost care lest unnecessary troubles are bred in the neighbouring States of Nagaland.