Ex-Parliamentarian’s Association of Nagaland (Ex-PAN) on Saturday expressed strong objection to the NSCN (I-M)’s assertion that Article 371(A) or 16 Point Agreement of 1960, no longer bore any political meaning since the “historic Framework Agreement” (FA) signed on August 3, 2015 has “come into existence to nullify all the past acts of injustice to the Nagas” and brought new solution/agreement that was honourable and acceptable. In a press release, Ex-PAN president Joshua Sumi and general secretary Tarie Zeliang said that the implications of NSCN (I-M)’s assertion would have far-reaching consequences and ramifications.
According to Ex-PAN, the FA, so far, remains a mere “Framework” because for the last eight years, since it was signed, no final agreement or any other subsequent arrangements have been reached at between the NSCN (I-M) and the government of India.
Ex-parliamentarians said that the FA was only an agreed parameter within which the agenda/competencies were supposed to be worked out for necessary implementations on the ground.
Ex-PAN stated that in pursuance of the same, similar to that of the 16-point agreement, those agreed agenda or competencies were to be enacted into an Act passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Also, Ex-PAN said that if Article 371(A) was to be superseded by any other Act, it has to be through a specific amendment by two-third majority of the members voting in both Houses.
“Only then, the question of whether such competencies under FA approved by both Houses of Parliament are superior/inferior in respect to constitutional status of Article 371(A) or 16-point agreement will hold water,” Ex-Pan stated.
However, Ex-parliamentarians maintained that the FA till date remains without substance and has never been placed before the two Houses of Parliament.
Ex-PAN has, therefore, termed as “an invalid assertion and misleading” the claims that Article 371(A) or 16-point agreement were nullified.
Ex-PAN expressed its concerted view that NSCN (I-M) must not try and dismantle the established constitutional pillars with “jaundiced eye unless such existing arrangements are substituted with more constitutional powers instead of basing their statements on an agreement that has no constitutional authority.”
Further, Ex-PAN said that statement of NSCN (I-M) blamed the government of India for the inconclusiveness of the negotiations.
In this regard, the Ex-PAN said that NSCN (IM) knew best who was responsible for the delays in arriving at a final agreement.
Ex-PAN has, therefore, urged all the negotiating parties to be sincere and honest with the Nagas as to whether they would opt for the ultimate agreement or would they opt out. The Ex-parliamentarians stated that the peace process cannot become indefinite as the process engages not only the negotiators but every citizen, adding the common man in particular had to bear the brunt of it.
