The meeting of former Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, Satish Chandran, and several senior Intelligence Bureau (IB) officials with leaders of the banned National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-M) in Geneva last month may result in an agreement based on limited autonomy to Nagaland.

The Naga leaders, in response, seem to have put on hold their demand for secession. The meeting, which was part of a series of ongoing negotiations, was held with T. Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu, the leaders of the NSCN(M).

While officially a tight-lipped silence is being maintained on the issues discussed and the agenda for negotiations, the Government as well as the NSCN are sanguine about the outcome. The official policy of tiring the movement out while keeping negotiations open now seems to have yielded some short-term benefits. The fact that the NSCN is negotiating at all, despite knowing the limitations of the agenda, is something of a breakthrough according to the official line.

Chandran, who led the negotiations -- described as ``unofficial dialogue'' -- has since retired from the PMO. Official sources say that he was reluctant to hold the meeting but was persuaded by Prime Minister I.K. Gujral to go for the ``sake of continuity''. A piquant situation has been created now, since the IB, which is responsible for opening the channel of communication with the NSCN, being not the only party speaking to them. Normally, the handling of the matter should have passed on to the Ministry of Home Affairs, but the PMO is keen to have a hands-on control of the negotiations.

The matter will now be handled by former Home Secretary and currently Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, N.N. Vohra. Since former prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda had initiated the process of dialogue, it has become a prestige issue for the current incumbents of the PMO. The spin doctors within the office also perceive talks as a winning issue. It is also one of the reasons why the Government is going slow on investigations into Nagaland Industries Minister K. Hollohon's alleged links with both the factions of the NSCN.

The Government delegation is learnt to have discussed the demand for Greater Nagaland put forward by the NSCN, which would comprise parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and other States bordering Nagaland. Senior officials say that any concession involving redrawing of territory can only follow an all-party consensus policy decision at the political level. They say that while the meetings are important to discuss the volatile issue, actual progress can only be made if the ambit of negotiations is broadened. And also, it is impossible to keep the channels of discussion open if even crumbs are not offered.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had already warned the Government not to hold unconditional talks with the militants. The BJP President, L. K. Advani, maintains that while negotiations are welcome they have to be done within well-defined parameters. This makes concessions even within the Greater Nagaland framework difficult. The accepted political view was to give ``ample concessions'' in the current boundaries and ``relative autonomy'' within the boundaries. This seems to have found wide acceptability across the political spectrum. With a fragile coalition at the Centre, the prospect of going beyond the formulae is unlikely.

But even the concession of a limited Greater Nagaland will spark widespread protest from the affected States. The only possible solution can be that given the current disarray in the NSCN, the Government can capitalise on the fatigue within the movement and ensure that a deal is chalked out in the shape of limited autonomy within the current boundaries of Nagaland. The Assam accord may well provide the blue-print for a future settlement based on limited autonomy with some additional concessions. The Government has already indicated to the NSCN that it is not prepared to go further than this.

Since the NSCN leaders are aware of the ground reality, they seem to have tacitly accepted the fact that boundary concessions will not happen. This does imply that the movement has come to the conclusion that sovereignty may be an unrealisable goal. After the meeting in Switzerland the NSCN also called it a ``positive development'' which is being viewed as a signal to the movement on the ground and a fillip to go ahead with further negotiations.