The Framework Agreement (FA) signed in 2015 by the Centre and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) to finalise the Naga peace accord has reportedly hit the reefs. Ironically enough, the agreement has turned out to be an impediment between the two sides to evolve a permanent solution to the Naga issue, one that has been festering for as long as it has.

While the other issues are said to have been resolved, the interpretation of the Framework Agreement (FA) by the NSCN (M) on the issue of sovereignty has stalled the process. The NSCN (IM) happens to be the primary group that is negotiating with the government on the pivotal issue of sovereignty.

Advertisement

There are said to be certain clauses on “sharing sovereign power”, which in the reckoning of the Naga group implies that “we are different’’. The accord was signed in August 2015 in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Six years later, the NSCN (IM) contends that its sovereignty has to be retained. Furthermore, any final agreement should be for “peaceful coexistence of the two sovereign powers”.

Viewed in retrospect, this is one of the basics which ought to have been resolved when the agreement ~ or framework thereof ~ was concluded. There is yet another perception that the drafting of the framework agreement was poor. A senior government official now contends that “it was vague, leaving (it) for both sides to interpret the deal according to their own convenience. Had there been no FA, we would probably have had a deal by now.”

As it turns out, both the Centre and the NSCN (IM) are groping for an enduring agreement. It bears recall that in the aftermath of a public spat with the former Nagaland interlocutor, RN Ravi, who was then the state Governor, the NSCN (IM) had released the Framework Agreement to public.

It was fairly explicit on the point that “both sides are cognizant of the universal principle of democracy, i.e. sovereignty lies with the people. Accordingly, the Government of India and NSCN, respecting the people’s wishes for sharing power as defined in the competencies, reached an agreement on 3 August 2015 as an honourable solution.

It will provide for an enduring inclusive new relationship of peaceful coexistence of the two entities”. That statement of objects has turned out to be a mere signal of intent, with little or no substantial change on the ground. The NSCN (IM) contends that ~ going by the terms of the agreement ~ the stated concept of “sharing sovereign power and coexistence of the two entities” implies that the people of Nagaland will be entitled to their own national flag and Constitution.

This, to say the very least, is unlikely to be accepted by any government at the Centre. In 2015, NSCN (IM) had shrilled for a status that was not dissimilar to the one that then prevailed in Jammu and Kashmir, now abrogated. A mutually agreeable solution must of necessity be evolved.