Naga militancy and violent politics in the shadow of ceasefire
| Author | Åshild Kolås |
| Published date | 01 November 2011 |
| Date | 01 November 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311417972 |
| Subject Matter | Research Articles |
Naga militancy and violent politics in
the shadow of ceasefire
Åshild Kolås
Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Abstract
Ceasefires are often seen as a simple measure to end violence and allow more substantive negotiations to begin. Con-
temporary conflict resolution models thus posit the ceasefire as a basic step in the peacebuilding trajectory. Offering
an in-depth analysis of Naga militancy in Northeast India, this article argues that ceasefires should rather be under-
stood as a part of the dynamics of conflict. Northeast India is a site of protracted conflict involving multiple contest-
ants, where Naga militant organizations play a key role. A string of ceasefires since 1997 between the Indian
government and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) has contained fighting between security forces
and militants, while violence has continued unabated between NSCN factions and among an array of other armed
groups in the area claimed as ‘Nagalim’, with serious consequences for local communities. This study suggests that
ceasefires may impact on conflict dynamics in at least three ways, all interrelated: (1) by affecting the internal cohe-
sion of belligerent groups, (2) by affecting the operational space of armed groups, and (3) by affecting the relations
between multiple stakeholders and parties to a conflict, including but not limited to the challenger(s) and the state.
The study concludes that the terms of ceasefire agreements, the strategic use of ceasefires by conflict actors, and the
opportunities created by a lack of effective monitoring of ceasefire ground rules has facilitated the operations of mili-
tants vying for territory, revenues from illegal ‘taxation’ and political stakes. Ceasefires have also paved the way for an
escalation of factional and intergroup fighting and violent politics in Northeast India, by empowering signatory
groups versus contenders as well as nonviolent actors.
Keywords
ceasefire, conflict resolution, India, militancy, violence
Questioning the role of ceasefires in
the trajectory to peace
Conventional peacebuilding wisdom holds that cease-
fires are an integral step on the path to peace in civil con-
flict. A standard formula of contemporary conflict
resolution is ‘a trajectory of ceasefire agreements, transi-
tional governments, demilitarization, constitutional
reform and democratic elections’ (Daley, 2006: 304).
As described by Clapham (1998: 195) the supposed role
of ceasefires in the post-Cold War conflict resolution
mechanism has been to ‘halt immediate suffering and
to provide conducive conditions under which interna-
tionally supervised negotiations could take place to estab-
lish the basis for a lasting settlement’. Viewed primarily
as a means to an end (the negotiated settlement), cease-
fires have thus received little scholarly attention relative
to the more prominent negotiation processes over peace
treaties and comprehensive peace agreements. Based on a
review of the long and checkered history of ceasefires and
negotiations between the government of India and Naga
militants in Northeast India, this article argues that
ceasefires should be understood as a part of the dynamics
of conflict, rather than a basic step to facilitate ‘real’
peace negotiations.
Corresponding author:
ashild@prio.no
Journal of Peace Research
48(6) 781–792
ªThe Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343311417972
jpr.sagepub.com
p
eace
R
ESEARCH
journal of
To continue reading
Request your trial