?This PM has no respect for his word? I am constrained to speak on matters on which I would have been silent for a lifetime. But newspaper reports, saying ?Kaushal sacked/removed?, have caused me deep pain and anguish as these are factually incorrect and untrue. Both these reports quote ?government sources? as the basis of their information. I have, therefore, no option but to set the record straight to defend my reputation and honour. It was in April 1998 that the Prime Minister telephoned me to say that given my background in the Mizoram accord, the government required my help for the Nagaland peace talks. I told him that since this was a job for the country and the request had come from the Prime Minister himself, my answer could only be ?Yes?. A request was then made in writing. This was followed by a government notification dated June 8, 1998, wherein I was accorded the position of a minister of state in the government of India with its salary and perks. The government officials were quite amazed when I wrote back that I would not accept any salary, car or even a telephone. All that I asked for was a modification in the government notification to this effect, which was then issued. I have copies of both the notifications. The home ministry officials quoted the case of an officer, who, while being the home secretary, created a post-retirement job for himself without specifying any time limit. Even the Prime Minister?s Office (PMO) used to comment on the gentleman holding on to his bungalow, car and perks, although there was no work for him after my appointment as the government of India?s representative. I told them that these matters did not concern me because, in any case, I was not interested in such facilities. The PMO, however, wanted the gentleman to move out because there was no work for him and he was only busy planting stories about the imminent failure of the peace talks. I wish him all the best in the task now entrusted to him. In June 1998, I was elected to the Rajya Sabha and continued my work for the peace talks. The efforts helped and in July/August 1998, the ceasefire was extended for a period of one year whereas all previous extensions used to be for just three months. We had a number of rounds in Bangkok, Zurich and Paris. We met twice in Amsterdam. I arranged the NSCN leaders? meeting with the Prime Minister in Paris on September 30, 1998. After that, I told the NSCN leaders that I will discuss only substantive issues because that alone will lead to an early solution to the Nagaland problem. I have seen in the past that people who got post-retirement appointments were only interested in prolonging the dialogue because they are interested only in their bungalow-car appointments. My mission was different. I was not working for such petty gains. I did not want to repeat the historical blunder we made by not negotiating with Phizo, the tallest Naga leader. The traditional school of thought in a government is to wear out the underground leadership, or divide their ranks. I do not believe in this. My view is that instead of weakening, you should strengthen the leadership of the underground. It is only a strong underground leadership that can sell an accord to its cadre. If you weaken a leadership or try to divide the ranks, you can never make an accord successful because one of the groups will reject it and go underground. We have done that many times, the last being the Punjab accord. In contrast is the case of Mizoram, where Laldenga could bring all the 700 rebels overground. It is only because of this that we have a lasting peace in Mizoram. Today, we have Laldenga?s second-in-command as the chief minister and his army chief as the home minister. In Nagaland, my brief was limited. I was to talk only to the NSCN (I-M) faction. I was all the time praying that all the Naga factions should unite because that alone will lead to a permanent solution to the Nagaland problem. But that was not in my hands. I could not wait for that indefinite time. The NSCN (I-M) leadership today is in their late sixties. I would not like to wear out that leadership. If that happens, that will be most unfortunate because their second-line leadership is in their mid-forties. If we miss this chance now, the next opportunity will come only ten years later and we will have violence in Nagaland for two more decades. The NSCN leadership agreed to discuss the substantive issues, which we did during our last meeting in Amsterdam. The NSCN stand is hard. Their language is even harsher. Yet that should not demoralise us. The initial rounds on substantive issues can never be different. The underground leadership has to adopt a tough stance, otherwise they are disowned and discredited by their underground cadre. The present attitude of the NSCN is also a result of the mistakes we made in the past. We agreed to the word ?ceasefire? whereas this should have been ?cessation of hostilities?. There is one more, which I would not like to disclose in the national interest. All this time, I kept our domestic politics at bay as this was a negotiation on behalf of the country. Unfortunately, the PM House thought differently. Since October 1998, it had started a sinister campaign against me and my family. They used to plant stories denigrating us. Every single story was traced back to the PM?s House. Such things never remain a secret. They thought, this would not reach us. What should I call this ? nothing but immaturity. Facts have their own speed. They take a little time but do manage to reach the concerned persons. Frankly speaking, I am not the kind to take these things lying down and my socialist credentials would confirm this. I fought the Emergency as George Fernandes? lawyer in the Baroda dynamite case. I stood by Laldenga when he was detained by Morarji Desai in 1979, and worked for peace in Mizoram for seven long years. It is not in my nature to accept the kind of behaviour the PM House indulged in. I restrained myself for a good six months. It was unlike me, but I did so because I was working for a bigger cause. They thought I was weak or timid. And they continued their malicious campaign without a break. In March, I thought enough was enough and I must put an end to this. I decided to shake off the shackle that restrained me the most. I decided to resign from my appointment as the Government of India?s representative. I resigned citing personal reasons and met Shri Brajesh Mishra, principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and handed over my resignation dated March 22, 1999. I told him that the responsibility I was discharging required credibility but the kind of campaign the PM House had launched against me was diluting my authority. They thought they were destroying me but in the process the cause was also being damaged. I think, I better withdraw so that the cause may not suffer. The meeting with NSCN leaders was to take place only three days later. He requested me to at least go for that meeting. I told him that when it comes to the interest of the country, I will go ten times. I went to Amsterdam for the meeting and reported back to the Government. My resignation dated March 22, 1999, remained pending with the Prime Minister. I pressed this resignation again on July 16, 1999, by writing a letter to the Prime Minister. There was an added reason for this because by now I had come to the conclusion that it was not advisable to represent this Prime Minister in a negotiation of this nature. He has no perception of the problems of the Northeast. This was a negotiation with an underground group. In a negotiation of this nature, what is most important is the credibility of your word. You should never go back on a word given. Unfortunately, this Prime Minister has no respect for his word. I do not want to elaborate this further in national interest. At the same time, I do not want to destroy my credibility which I have built over 20 long years of negotiations and peace talks. I, therefore, decided to disassociate myself and wrote to him on July 16, 1999, pressing for my resignation dated March 22, 1999, which was accepted on July 19, 1999. If the PMO desires, I will elaborate these facts further, for which only they will be responsible. I repeat, if my resignation was described as what it was, I would have never said a word about the negotiations or its dramatis personae. You caused me so much pain and agony. I suffered in silence for over ten months but never said a word. I gave twenty best years of my life for peace in the Northeast. I worked for these negotiations day and night without any hope of return or reward. But you describe my resignation as removal. Is this the reward that you are giving me for twenty years of my work? So I better speak only to defend my honour. You cannot disgrace my lifetime?s work in this manner. I hope the Prime Minister?s admirers will now correct themselves and not describe my ?resignation? as ?sacking? or ?removal?. A former Governor of Mizoram, Kaushal was the government interlocutor in Naga peace talks. He is a Rajya Sabha MP and husband of Sushma Swaraj.