Muivah

Bangkok, Jan. 30: The ceasefire extension with the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) remained stuck despite three days of intensive talks with the Nagas offering only a three-month extension unless New Delhi agreed to give certain assurances.

Indian negotiators are not willing to accept such a short ceasefire extension.

The game of brinkmanship between NSCN (I-M) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah and Indian negotiators ?minister of state Oscar Fernandes and former home secretary K. Padmanabhaiah ? went on till late this evening. However, there was hope that differences may be narrowed by tomorrow, when the present ceasefire ends.

Depending on the assurances from New Delhi, the ceasefire may then be extended by six months to a year. The Naga side is not averse to an extension and in fact argued that it was necessary to preserve the peace process so that a negotiated settlement could take place.

But they claimed that New Delhi had shown scant regard for preserving the ceasefire.

The sticking points in the talks were the Naga claim of ceasefire violations by security forces outside Nagaland; the army’s alleged encouragement of groups inimical to them; and New Delhi’s failure to respond positively to the major proposals made by them.

NSCN (I-M) sources claimed that although their cadre and supporters had been killed in Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh in the last six months, New Delhi was willing to give assurances on adhering to ceasefire ground rules only in Nagaland.

This, they claimed, was despite the specific understanding between their leaders Muivah and Isak Swu and the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Osaka in 2001. After the violence in Manipur over ceasefire area coverage, Vajpayee had told them that informally, the ceasefire agreement would apply to wherever there was fighting between the NSCN (I-M) and the security forces. “If India does not accept this commitment then are we to assume that we are free to fight outside Nagaland?” asked an NSCN (I-M) leader.

Indian sources, however, said they could not afford to rake up the controversy about ceasefire area coverage once again by giving any written commitment. “Informally, the Vajpayee understanding continues,” said a source.

The second sticking point was the NSCN (I-M) allegation that groups inimical to it were being encouraged by India. The Indian side’s response was to underline the “questionable” activities of the NSCN (I-M) during the ceasefire ? it had continued to encourage other militant groups like the National Liberation Front of Tripura and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland.

Muivah said despite the assurance of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress chief Sonia Gandhi and home minister Shivraj Patil, no “positive steps” were taken by New Delhi.