DIMAPUR, SEP 7 (NPN): The Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN) has raised questions over the factors it believes are delaying the settlement of the Naga political issue, while calling for clarity on the status of the agreements reached between Naga political groups and the Government of India.
In a statement, the CNFN said the prolonged political negotiations and the prevailing uncertainty had adversely affected Nagaland’s social, political and economic life. It also alleged that multiple taxation, kidnappings for ransom, threats and harassment by armed tax collectors had become widespread, contributing to the decline of Dimapur and the State’s overall development. The forum pointed out that the NSCN (I-M)’s Framework Agreement with the Centre was signed on August 3, 2015, while the Agreed Position between the Government of India and the Working Committee of NNPGs was signed on November 17, 2017. It said the political negotiations were brought to an official closure on October 31, 2019, during the tenure of then Interlocutor R.N. Ravi.
CNFN said the agreements were subsequently placed before the Nagaland Legislative Assembly in January 2020 and the House approved the Motion of Thanks on the Governor’s address.
According to CNFN, the 13th Nagaland Legislative Assembly at its 5th Session on January 17, 2020, legally endorsed both the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position. The forum said that if the government now seeks to undo the officially voted and recorded resolution, it would have to be done by the Assembly through a legally valid amendment motion.
The forum also claimed that the State government and NSCN (I-M) had lobbied for Ravi’s removal, after which the Centre did not appoint another interlocutor with a similar political status. It said the recent demand by the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) for a Union Minister of State to handle the Naga issue, followed by Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio’s recent Independence Day announcement about a Centre-appointed committee headed by the Minister of State for Home Affairs, raised serious questions.
CNFN also questioned the differing positions within NSCN (I-M) over the Framework Agreement, citing statements by V.S. Atem and Q. Tuccu.
It asked whether the Centre had authorised the Chief Minister to announce the new arrangement and demanded clarity from the Centre on the actual status of the proposed emissary and the two existing agreements.
CNFN also questioned whether what it termed “anti-solution elements” had succeeded in setting aside the two agreements. It said the public therefore deserved clarity on the actual status and mandate of the new emissary reportedly being appointed to handle the Naga political issue.
The forum maintained that the Nagas of Nagaland, as well as Nagas in general, were entitled to a clear and unequivocal statement on the status of the agreements and the proposed new emissary.
