The complexities of Naga political issue are rooted in constructed identities and contested histories. Despite disagreement over interpretation of the Framework Agreement, both the Central government and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) agree that the peace talks can reach a dead end because of such complexities during negotiation over complicated issues. This conviction has helped both the sides to carry on the dialogue in a sustained manner to break the deadlock and keep alive the hope for expeditious resolution of the intractable conflict. The NSCN(IM) has issued a statement claiming that the Government of India has recognized the legitimate rights of the Nagas to integrate all Naga territories.
It has also claimed that "roadmap has been worked out" for "a political set up with legislative, executive, financial (separate budget) and judicial powers will be created which will be transitional". Besides, a Pan Naga Hoho with provision for separate budget to be allocated by Government of India will also created as a socio-cultural body. Going by the NSCN(IM) statement there will be two Pan Naga set-up – one politico-administrative with legislative power and other socio-cultural. It is not clear if the territories of the proposed set ups will be on the lines of satellite autonomous councils in Assam which have no fixed territory but have jurisdiction over all the villages and towns dominated by the particular community who have been given the autonomy. These councils, however, grapple with the problem of overlapping jurisdictions. The Working Committee of the Naga National Political Group (NNPG), a conglomerate of seven other rebel groups, on the other hand has stated that any new political or administrative arrangement or structure that respects and promotes Naga history, culture and identity "without altering the boundary of Manipur, Arunachal and Assam" must be appreciated. As the Government of India has made it clear that there will be single accord with the NSCN(IM) and NNPG there is ambiguity over the jurisdiction and authority of the proposed political set up which the NSCN(IM) claims has been agreed by the Government of India.
People of Manipur, Arunachal and Assam will continue to be apprehensive over the final Naga peace accord paving the way for alteration of the present political boundaries of their states unless the Central government clarifies and reassure them. The Government of India should bring both the NSCN(IM) and the NNPG to the common negotiation table to end the confusions over the agreed positions. It is heartening to know that both NSCN(IM) and NNPG have agreed in principle to come together and discuss across the table their differences over the agreed positions. This has not materialized so far despite with wishes and sustained efforts of the Naga civil society organizations. The NSCN(IM) says that Government of India has recognized the uniqueness of Naga history. For the people in the four states, identities have also been constructed around the territories created by political boundaries and collective memories. The Naga political problem manifests such complexities of constructed identities and histories of the communities who claim to have their uniqueness. This makes it necessary for the government to take every single stakeholder into confidence in order the solution to the Naga political problem to be long lasting and not the cause of a new problem. An official statement from the Central government is necessary to clear the air. Is also advisable for the negotiators on both sides to issue joint statement on the agreed points instead of unilateral statement so that there can be no confusion among the stakeholders in the four states over the mutually agreed positions of the negotiators.
The NSCN(IM) has not diluted its position over the issue of a separate flag and constitution for the Nagas. The government of India is learnt to have conveyed to the NSCN(IM) that New Delhi's firm position is that there can be only one flag and one constitution for the entire country. Deadlock is over these two contentious issues will need sustained negotiations for some more rounds. It will require the negotiators to engage with an approach to appreciate the hard realities of each other so that instead of pushing two solutions that have no commonality, working as a team to find a single pragmatic solution will break the ice. Transparency of the entire peace process is critical to mobilizing consent of all stakeholders who are not party to the negotiation but whose opinion matter in ensuring the solution to be long lasting. One-sided story, on the other hand, creates the space for building narratives based on individual perception. Such narratives have the potential to ruin the progress made in the peace talks after more than 23 years of negotiations. The negotiators must keep in mind that the mutually agreed solution to the Naga political problem must not open a Pandora's Box.