NSCN (I-M) Collective Leadership member Rh Raising has termed the Nagaland GB Federation (NGBF) pro-Indian, amidst the latter’s demand for merger of the Framework Agreement and Agreed Position.
Interacting with the media on the sidelines of 46th Republic Day celebrations at CHQ, Hebron on Friday, Raising asserted that Framework Agreement had already been signed and that any solution must be based on it, declaring “We cannot accept any solution apart from that.”
He was replying to a query on the NGBF’s claim of having met separately the NSCN (I-M) and Working Committee, Naga National Political Groups (WC, NNPGs) to propose a common platform for unity.
He acknowledged that unity and reconciliation among the Nagas was a priority, but stressed that the Nagas could not talk about the solution among themselves only, as it had to be between the central government and Naga representatives.
Criticising the NGBF, he accused the federation of being pro-Indian and not advocating the Naga cause. He said the NSCN (I-M) initially trusted NGBF, but lamented that the federation later deviated from the Naga political struggle.
He maintained that the federation lacked people’s mandate, claiming that they were the brainchild of the central government, and were under Delhi’s payroll.
“They may say this and that, but that is not the final. This is their opinion, not the opinion of the Naga people,” he emphasised. Raising claimed that Naga people had entrusted the NSCN (I-M) with the responsibility of negotiating a solution with the central government, making the group legitimate representative of the Naga people in the political talks.
According to him, after the decline of the Naga National Council (NNC), the NSCN (I-M) was mandated by the Naga National Hoho to uphold the movement, a fact he claimed was recognised by the central government too.
Acknowledging the presence of multiple Naga groups and agreeing that the Nagas should unite, he however pointed out that the NSCN (I-M) was a principle-based organisation working on certain principles.
He emphasised that fighting with the central government, negotiations, and an eventual solution must be issued based, rather than mere agreements.
If negotiations were not issue-based, he cautioned that there would be a repetition of old mistakes, citing examples of the 16 Point Agreement and Shillong Accord, both of which, according to him, failed because they lacked a strong foundation in the Naga cause and were subsequently rejected by the people.
He insisted that the Framework Agreement, which both the central government and the NSCN (I-M) had arrived at after decades of struggle, must serve as the basis for a final solution.
He also extended invitation to other Naga groups to join the Framework Agreement, but stressed that the agreement should be issue-based and not aligned with the Constitution of India.
Regarding the possibility of merging the Agreed Position with the Framework Agreement, as appealed by civil society organisations, Raising responded that they should support the Framework Agreement that had been officially signed between the Central government and NSCN (I-M) in the eyes of the whole world.
He claimed that Indian representatives had time and again stated that they would stand by agreement under the leadership of ato kilonser Th Muivah.
“We will unite on principle, but not on the line of Shillong Accord, 16 Point Agreement, or any agreement that betrays the principle. Because we are principle-based, and we are mandated by the principle,” he reiterated.
Responding to allegations that NSCN (I-M) was deliberately delaying solution, he noted that even some ministers of Nagaland had raised the same question during a recent meeting with the chief minister. He however clarified that there was neither any delay nor an early solution.
“Solution has to be principle-based. If India is prepared to solve the problem on the basis of Naga principles, then it can be done within a day or so. But if it is not principle-based, it will take years and years, even decades or so,” he elaborated, adding that the Naga issue could not be murdered for the sake of short-term peace.
When asked which according to him should be first– solution after Naga unity or solution before Naga unity, Raising dismissed the idea of achieving unity first and then a solution, calling it “nonsense,” and instead emphasized that the solution itself is what will unite the people—acting as a “rallying point.”
He reiterated, “Unity should be principle based. Reconciliation should be principle based. We will never reconcile with anything in line with the Constitution of India.”