1997 Ceasefire Agreement

The center on Monday extended the ceasefire agreement with three Nagaland insurgent groups for another year. The ceasefire agreements were signed on Monday and will now be extended until April 2022. In 2015, when Narendra Modi`s government was firmly in power and Prime Minister Modi lobbied for a speedy resolution of the dispute, a framework agreement was signed that set the stage for the ongoing peace talks. The Ministry of home affairs issued a statement in this regard, stating that the ceasefire agreements between the Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland/NK (NSCN/NK), the National Socialist Council of Nagaland/Reform (NSCN/R) and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland/K-Khango (NSCN/K-Khango) were in force. “In order to find a peaceful political solution, talks have been held between the Indian government and the NSCN leadership. It was agreed to cease fire for a period of three (3) months from 1 August 1997 and to start discussions at the political level. “In the ensuing talks, with a better understanding of each other`s positions and respect for the historical and political rights of the Naga people, an indelible step was taken when the historic framework agreement was signed on August 4, 2015. The agreement clearly reflects the unique history of the Nagas, the sovereignty of the people and the common sovereignty of the two entities. Significantly, the agreement has placed the hope of both people at a high level for a lasting solution and peace in the country,” the statement said. The Centre and the Naga people have much to gain from the framework agreement, and the NSCN (IM) will respect the agreement anyway. The outcome in favor of the deal was greeted with relief by supporters of the deal at the time. However, the extent of scepticism and anti-consent sentiment in the Unionist community, its persistent concerns about certain aspects of the agreement and the different expectations of the two Communities towards the agreement are expected to lead to difficulties in the coming years. “It has been decided to extend the ceasefire agreements with NSCN/NK and NSCN/R from April 18, 2021 to April 27, 2022 with NSCN/NK and NSCN/R from April 18, 2021 to April 17, 2022 with NSCN/K-Khango for a further period of one year,” the statement said.

The NSCN-IM called the deal “fraudulent” and questioned whether the center was “sincere” about a solution. The organization said it was “crucial at this stage that the center reaffirms its position and commitment to the framework agreement.” The organization said the center and the NSCN (IM) had come a long way in negotiating an honorable and mutually acceptable Naga solution, and said the government would unnecessarily “complicate” the issue by opting for many agreements. “This misleading way of dealing with the Naga issue leaves us with no choice but to ask a serious question of the Indian government. Will he also reach agreements with others on behalf of interest groups on the Naga political issue? But this will in no way show the sincerity of the government. It will simply be a breach of trust and mockery of the Naga issue,” the NSCN (IM) said in a statement on Sunday. Security analyst Ajai Sahni agrees. The current arrangement, Sahni said, is an “opportunistic response from the state that hopes the system will somehow tend toward an acceptable solution over time.” But time is running out, Sahni warned. “It`s hot again in the northeast,” he said. “As long as there is no time-limited timetable for the implementation of the framework agreement, a basis for escalation in the region will be created.” When the northeast was in turmoil, the center quickly removed the territorial clause and made it clear that the ceasefire was limited to Nagaland – much to the chagrin of the NSCN (IM), which accused the government of acting unilaterally. In 1997, the NSCN-IM reached a ceasefire agreement with the central government and has been conducting peace negotiations ever since.

On the Republican side, the “no” campaign seemed to focus on the purity of the Republican ideal of complete and absolute independence from Britain. From this point of view, any compromise, however temporary, on the goal of Irish unity (or the right to continue armed struggle) was presented as a betrayal of those who had fought and died for Ireland. The dismantling of weapons and the end of paramilitary activities were portrayed as capitulation to the British. The principle of consent was presented as a trade unionist veto, as it meant that political progress would be almost impossible without the participation of trade unionists. It was pointed out that the agreement accepted division. The state and its institutions would remain hostile to the republican community, critics argued. Despite these concerns, the vast majority of Republicans voted yes, with only a few small non-representative parties (such as Republican Sinn Féin) advocating no on the nationalist side. .

Share with

Start typing and press Enter to search

Open chat