Bangkok, Oct. 11: “Don’t put the cart before the horse and ask the Nagas at this stage what they want,” Thuingaleng Muivah, general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah), thus commented when asked, what he meant by “sovereignty” of the Nagas, after the second round of peace talks today.

Muivah’s repeated references to Nagas being “sovereign” have led many in India to believe that there is no possibility of an acceptable settlement with the NSCN (I-M).

Engaging in what might be described as “creative ambiguity”, Muivah told the Indian negotiators that at this stage of the talks there was no need to explain what Nagas meant by “Independence”, “Sovereignty” or “Freedom”.

He seemed to suggest that the Nagas should not be forced to give categorical answers at a time when substantive issues have just begun to be addressed as this might prevent a settlement.

The Indian negotiators led by minister of state for programme implementation, Oscar Fernandes, and special representative for Naga talks, K. Padmanabhaiah, wanted a clarification about the meaning of these terms. Their belief was that unless this was done, the direction of the peace process might not be clear.

The Indian side is believed to have impressed upon the Naga delegation that of the 31 proposals made by them to settle the Naga issue, only five were contentious.

These issues, the Indian side believes would help Nagas define their “uniqueness.” The issues are ? a common citizenship, joint defence of Naga territory, a separate Constitution for Nagaland, a separate state flag and control over natural resources.

The Indian negotiators argued that if the government decides to address these issues and resolve them in a manner acceptable to the Nagas, then they should have no objection in exercising their sovereign decision for Nagaland to be with India.

In this context, it was also discussed how the people of Sikkim had exercised their sovereignty to join India, while at the other extreme, the Bangladeshis had exercised theirs to be independent of Pakistan.

Giving the negotiations a chance to succeed, Muivah said: “I told them ? ‘Let the relationship between the Nagas and India define itself through the terms of the agreement. If a solution has to be arrived at, it has to be on mutually acceptable terms. The terms of the agreement shall define the position of the two sides’.”

Muivah believes that insisting the Nagas to clarify their position on “sovereignty” might entail the Indian side denying Naga history of independence and self-governance.

“That would be insulting and would upset our people,” he explained.

He said he understood the problems that India had with some of the proposals given by him. However, he said: “Suffice it to say for now that we want an extremely close relationship with India. It is for India to decide for itself what that relationship means.”

Another important issue that continued to dominate the second day of discussions was the question of investigating ceasefire violations leading to the death of an NSCN (I-M) cadre.

Muivah wants “joint investigation” of such incidents. “If this is not done, we told them, that, the sentiments of the people would be hurt because of the gross injustice involved.”

The Indian negotiators said that the NSCN’s co-operation should be there in the investigations and modalities should be worked out.”

The two sides decided that the next round of talks should be held in Bangkok with the NSCN (I-M) suggesting dates in November. However, the dates will be confirmed once the schedule of the winter session of Parliament is announced.