Dimapur, March 14: Taking the cue from the Lankan peace process, a top NSCN(I-M) functionary today said his organisation might press for an “external guarantor” in the advanced stages of the political negotiations with New Delhi.
Rh. Raising, a former “home minister” in the insurgent organisation’s “government”, told The Telegraph that a “third party” should stand as guarantor to any agreement his organisation arrives at with the Centre. The guarantor should also oversee future rounds of talks, Raising said.
Drawing a parallel with the Sri Lankan peace initiative, where talks with the LTTE are being facilitated by the Norwegian government, the NSCN(I-M) leader said the “guarantor should be a foreign country or an international agency”.
However, he admitted that the talks thus far had been “satisfactory”.
Raising, who is also an important member of the core committee on political talks, claimed that the recent parleys in New Delhi — the first on home turf — had “increased the level of understanding” between the two parties.
However, he hoped future talks would be held at a foreign venue.
He appreciated the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government’s approach to the Indo-Naga problem, saying that it had recognised its “uniqueness”.
“By taking a political approach, the current political class in New Delhi has made a perceptible change in the Government of India’s stand on the Naga problem — from seeking a military solution to a political settlement.”
He said the stepping stone towards an atmosphere of understanding between the two parties was the Centre’s “realisation” that talks could take place only if three facilitating factors were taken into account.
These are talks without conditions and at the highest level with preferably a third country as the venue.
Raising was optimistic about a solution to the vexed Naga problem, but said the organisation could at no point of time betray its principle of achieving the right to “self-determination.”
He dismissed reports that the NSCN(I-M) was working out an “autonomy formula” as a possible solution.
“The Naga struggle and the ongoing political process are not about gaining autonomy,” he said.
Raising also made it clear that there could not be any solution to the problem without unifying all contiguous Naga areas — a key refrain of the organisation.
He argued that the “land of the Nagas” was divided “arbitrarily by alien forces” and that the community today finds itself in different “states and nations”.