Flexibility, give-and-take approach required in Naga talks — Imkong L Imchen

KOHIMA — Advisor for Information & Public Relations and Soil & Water Conservation, Imkong L Imchen, expressed concern over potential threats to the ongoing Naga peace process during a press conference at the Nagaland Civil Secretariat on Monday.

His comments follow a recent statement by the NSCN (IM) accusing the Indian government of “betraying” the 2015 Framework Agreement. The group alleged the central government is “deliberately refusing” to recognise key provisions of the agreement—the Naga national flag and constitution.

In the statement, NSCN (IM) General Secretary, Th. Muivah, asserted these elements are “non-negotiable” and suggested a third-party intervention to resolve the deadlock— warning that rejection of this overture would lead to resumption of “the violent armed resistance against India.”

Read here: NSCN (IM) seeks third-party intervention to break Indo-Naga deadlock

In this context, Imchen expressed his opposition to ending the ceasefire. He said that flexible negotiation and a give-and-take approach should be the policy on the negotiating table. “Threatening doesn’t work to achieve the expected goal in any human interaction. If we break down the ceasefire and return to armed struggles, I don’t see a very bright future for Nagaland,” he added.

Stressing that the present leadership should pave the way and establish a stable roadmap for future leaders, he went on to state that reverting to bloodshed and violence would create instability and “Nagaland will not be a comfortable state.”

Also view:

“The negotiation conducted over the last three decades may not be easy. It may be easier said than done, but I still stress that the negotiator should have the diplomacy of give-and-take and flexible diplomacy,” he added.

Imchen also stated that the negotiation should aim for a “win-win situation” and not a “winner-takes-all” scenario. To achieve this, flexible diplomacy is essential, he asserted, noting that the members of the legislative assembly recognise the public’s support for this approach.

The senior legislator also responded to queries on integrating all Naga-inhabited areas. He suggested this should involve boundary demarcation under Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, requiring mutual agreement from all affected states to allow the Union government to take the matter to Parliament.

On the unresolved nature of the Naga political issue under the Modi government and the concerns raised by the NSCN (IM), Imchen pointed out that all past military atrocities against Nagas occurred under Congress rule. During that period, the Congress was in touch with political groups but made no formal agreement. In contrast, during the BJP’s short rule, Modi entered into a framework agreement with NSCN (IM), he maintained.

He reasoned that if two parties reach a negotiated agreement, both should work towards consensus and bear equal responsibility for upholding it.

He also opined that the chances of third-party intervention are slim, as India is a world power politically, economically, and militarily. “Who will dare interfere in India’s internal affairs today? If the Government of India and the Naga negotiating group agree to invite a third party, intervention is possible, but if only one side agrees, it will never work,” he remarked.

Clarifies on jumping ship

Imchen also clarified his position on being labelled a “defector” after leaving the Naga People’s Front (NPF) to join the Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party (NDPP) and subsequently the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Prior to that, he was in the Congress too. He explained that his actions did not constitute defection within the context of the 13th and 14th NLAs.

Furthermore, he said that during the recent parliamentary election, strong campaigns on religious platforms almost “liquidated” the BJP, yet he remained confident that Narendra Modi would return as prime minister, given India’s global economic power and the “Modi factor” playing a significant role.

While acknowledging that BJP did not directly contest the parliamentary election in Nagaland, he said that the party had endorsed its coalition partner’s candidate. He attributed the limited political support for the PDA candidate to social media campaigns against the BJP.

He went on to highlight the BJP’s contributions, specifically the Framework Agreement and Agreed Position with Naga groups. While admitting that the central government’s flagship programmes have not always achieved their intended goals, he commended the initiatives as “time-tested” and directly beneficial to the people.

Considering Nagaland’s budget largely depends on central funds, he stressed the importance of maintaining good relations with the BJP-led central government.

Opposition-less govt. lacks ‘testiness’

Imchen also commented on the state’s opposition-less government, where the BJP-NDPP combine holds a substantial majority. He argued that this lack of opposition reduces accountability, saying: “My opinion is that an opposition-less government doesn’t face much of a test. It is not a testy government.”

Emphasising the importance of an opposition within a functioning democracy, he remarked that opposition members are not enemies of the government. Elected representatives should hold the ruling bench accountable and address weaknesses in policy and programmes, he said.

However, “opposition-less means there is no good test. Testiness is the word, and it’s a tasteless government.”

When asked about the Mumbai Court summoning BJP Minister Temjen Imna Along and the implications for Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister Y Patton following the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court’s overturning of police constable appointments, Imchen referenced his own experience during the 2013 Assembly election. As home minister at the time, he resigned after being implicated in an MCC violation case.

Relating this to the current situation, he said, “So it is up to them to apply their mind,” referring to the two legislators. He nevertheless emphasised the legal principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.