If the Border Security Force (BSF) version is to be believed, the two were “found loitering” 50 metres inside Indian territory at the India-Bangladesh border at Dawki in Meghalaya around quarter past one in the morning of December 4. They had no arms with them. But what is believed to have actually happened is that they were held by the Bangladesh authorities in Dhaka and quietly handed over to India. As there is no formal extradition treaty between the two countries, both sides were eager to avoid publicity and do the handing over in a hush-hush manner. Hopefully, an extradition treaty will be signed during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's forthcoming visit to New Delhi beginning December 19.

The BSF informed the Assam police immediately. A high-level team arrived and took charge of the duo. They were driven straight to the Special Branch headquarters of the Assam police at Kahilipara in Guwahati. Later, four Union Home Ministry officials flew in from Delhi and held marathon talks with the ULFA leaders who had not, till then, been formally arrested. Two other ULFA leaders, “foreign secretary” Sasha Chowdhury and “finance secretary” Chitrabon Hazarika, now lodged in Guwahati jail, were also brought from jail to join the talks.

Rajkhowa and Barua were reportedly told that if they agreed to give up the sovereignty demand, they would be taken to Delhi for talks. It is only on their refusal to compromise on the question of Assam's sovereignty that they were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Guwahati who remanded them in police custody for twelve days.

Meanwhile, Paresh Barua, the self-styled ULFA “C-in-C”, who is believed to be hiding in the Kachin area of Myanmar, issued a statement hailing Rajkhowa for his stand on sovereignty. The two have not been on the best of terms for many years. Rajkhowa is known to be a “soft-liner” keen on an honourable peace agreement with India while Barua is reputed to be a “hard-liner” determined to carry on the armed struggle. Some years ago, when ULFA's main camp was in Bhutan, their differences reportedly came to a head and Rajkhowa was virtually “kept confined” by Barua.

Rajkhowa, as chairman, heads the civil or political wing of the outfit, while Barua is in command of the armed wing which has been carrying on acts of violence and sabotage for decades. The strength of the armed wing is estimated to be four to five hundred boys. They are totally loyal to Barua. Without his participation and cooperation, no peace talk will be of any practical import. Now that Rajkhowa has also refused to budge from the sovereignty demand, there is no immediate prospect of an early solution of the insurgency problem. Rajkhowa, before being produced before the CJM, told the people waiting at the court compound: “I have not surrendered and will not surrender. There can be no discussion if I am held prisoner in handcuffs.”

Even if Rajkhowa changes his stance in future and agrees to hold talks with the Centre and even if a peace accord is signed with him, it will be only peace with a section of the militants. The armed wing which matters most, will be left out and carry on its depredations as usual. Talks can be successful only if all sections are brought into the peace process and all abide by the agreements reached. It is relevant in this connection to recall what had happened after the peace treaty with the rebel Nagas.

The Naga rebellion was being led by the late A. Z. Phizo under the banner of Naga National Council (NNC). After Phizo's departure from Nagaland and his self-imposed exile in London and after years of violence and bloodshed, a peace accord was signed between the NNC and the Centre at Shillong on November 11, 1975. Clause 3(ii) of the agreement stated the NNC would surrender its arms. The Angamis then constituted the dominant leadership in the NNC. But other tribes denounced the accord as a “betrayal”, refused to give up arms and broke away from the NNC.

Later, they formed the National Socialist Council of Nagaland under the leadership of Thuingelang Muiva (a Sema) and Isaac Chisi Swu (a Tangkhul) and resolved to carry on the armed struggle. Later still, S. S. Khaplang (a Hemi Naga of Myanmar) quarrelled with Muivah and Swu and broke away to form a rival faction known as NSCN (Khaplang). So, one militant outfit split into three though, interestingly, none of the three leaders belong to Nagaland. There is no active violence now but with no faction giving up the sovereignty demand, there is no “peace” either and a political settlement remains as elusive as ever. Only a “ceasefire” which earlier used to be renewed every six months now continues indefinitely.

Neither the State Government nor the people of Assam want a repeat of the Naga story. They want a permanent and durable peace to which all factions of ULFA should be a party. (IPA Service)