Working Committee (WC), Naga National Political Groups(NNPGs) has categorically stated that it has never expressed, officially or otherwise, any desire to be part of an agreement where NSCN (I-M) is a party.
In a press release, WC said the term “Common Draft” being circulated, for convergence of all stakeholders, was an initiative of the Government of India (GoI) for an inclusive Naga solution. It said the WC had acknowledged it in principle, provided it did not disturb the “core fabric” of the November 17, 2017 Agreed Position – which it described as the only historical agreement which distinctly pinpoints the Nagas’ right to determine their future while respecting contemporary political realities.
Acknowledging the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) for facilitating the Covenant of Reconciliation (2009), Naga Concordant (2011), and Lenten Agreement (2014), the WC alleged that NSCN (I-M) leadership used these agreements only to reflect legitimacy and impress New Delhi.
It said that Government of India acted hastily, as the NSCN (I-M) delegation flew to Delhi without the presence of any representative from the FNR, apex tribal bodies, the Church, or other civil society groups, and signed the infamous Framework Agreement on August 3, 2015.
WC stated that the moral and emotional consent of the Naga tribes was never sought, nor did it prick their conscience. It said that even today, Nagas were not privy to the real political discussions, and therefore, Indigenous Nagas and ancestral entities did not consider the Framework Agreement as genuinely theirs. WC termed the word “Nagalim” as utopian, irrelevant, and non-existent in the pages of Naga history, adding that it was no surprise the FA headline used “Nagaland” instead of “Nagalim.”
WC said that all FNR-guided agreements now lay in tatters, with skeletons protruding from the ground over why the Framework Agreement (FA) had become a “secret agenda” incapable of withstanding scrutiny before the Nagas. It alleged that from the outset, the FA was designed as an exclusive, closed-door matter for a select few within the NSCN (I-M) set-up, and that the very idea of an inclusive Naga political solution was an anathema to them. WC said that the Naga people have decoded the FA minutely.
It alleged that the real motive behind NSCN (I-M)’s demand for a flag and constitution was more of “an insurance policy and an emotional tool” to facilitate the transfer of Nagaland’s wealth for acquiring assets in Ukhrul and elsewhere.
According to WC, it was also being used as a bargaining chip for constitutional guarantees as part of the political solution, including the transfer of Intangki reserve forest stretch and adjoining areas to create a township exclusively for Nagas from Manipur. WC claimed that the plan was to place the area under the administration of senior Tangkhul members wielding political and administrative power through a new political arrangement, adding that this layer of political discourse could not be disclosed even to NSCN (I-M)’s own civil and military workers from Nagaland, let alone to the public.
WC said that with such elaborate future plans in the closet, the NSCN (I-M) leadership had every reason to accuse WC, NNPGs and the Agreed Position as dangerous.
It alleged that the NSCN (I-M) chairman was recently made to sign and issue a press statement. As rightly stated, WC said AP and the FA were poles apart, with the former providing a blueprint for a future relationship between the Government of India and the Nagas, while the FA remained “an undeclared document” whose inner details the Nagas will not accept.
It asserted that individual plans cannot be a part of an inclusive Naga plan and that those who think for themselves cannot think for future generation Nagas.
According to WC, Centre has already conveyed to the NSCN (I-M) that Intangki Reserve Forest belongs to the Naga people and cannot be transferred to NSCN (I-M) members from Manipur in any manner under the shadow of Pan Naga Hoho.
WC said it foresaw this plan and pointed out during the negotiations and reaffirmed that under no circumstances should the Intangki reserve forest be disturbed post solution.
It said WC had corrected the wrongs of FA and therefore it was “absolutely clear that NSCN (I-M) is not for solution, not for Naga flag, not for Naga constitution, not for Naga integration.” WC alleged that the group was for Intangki Reserve Forest, to control Nagaland, Manipur and Assam corridor.
It further stated that the rhetoric against the Government of India with sentimental issues and the backtracking from numerous FNR-guided reconciliatory declarations and resolutions had calculated reasons.
WC said Nagas wanted an early, honourable and acceptable political solution and that they had negotiated a clear roadmap in line with the desire of the Nagas. It said the Centre had stated that it was preparing a “common draft” from both FA and AP.
However, it alleged that NSCN (I-M) had termed it dangerous to work or sit together with NNPGs. “Simply put, they are against the Naga people and want to sabotage Naga solution,” WC stated, adding that it was clearly visible that Naga solution would jeopardise their (NSCN-IM) secret plan. WC said that logically, NSCN (I-M) was blackmailing both the Naga people and the Centre.
While stating that it had to correct the political blunders committed by the authors of FA, WC said NNPG entities had reached out to the Nagas to seek their views on what they wanted from the Government of India. According to WC, the indigenous tribes in Nagaland, indigenous Naga tribes in Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam were now politically conscious and privy to the contours of AP. It said the negotiated ‘Status Paper’ was with the apex Naga tribal hohos, village headmen, elected representatives, student bodies and church leaders in all Naga areas.
WC stated that the existing State and international boundaries within Naga ancestral lands were legacies of the past and part of contemporary political realities. It said that during intensive negotiations, these Naga lands were primary subjects that required special political arrangements deserving tremendous political and administrative autonomy.
According to WC, it had “put pen to paper” to entrench Naga history and identity. “To the GoI, it is either the voice of the Naga people or the noise of the few,” it stated.