NSCN/GPRN (K) president Niki Sumi has opposed abrogation of Free Movement Regime (FMR) along the India-Myanmar border. Addressing members of the media fraternity at former CFSB office, Padum Pukhuri here on Tuesday, Niki acknowledged the uncertainty and alarm among the Nagas regarding the abrogation of FMR.
He claimed that Nagas both in India and in Myanmar were one community, and had existed long before independence of both the countries. He urged Nagas to reflect on historical perspectives and decide collectively on whether a border wall should be erected.
He stressed unity among Nagas to take a determined decision on the matter, and cautioned against allowing abrogation of FMR without the consent of the Nagas, emphasising that it was a Naga issue and not the sole concern of any political party or faction.
He feared that some Naga leaders might be supporting the idea for personal gain. Dismissing concerns about drug trafficking, Niki pointed out that if drugs were the issue, these could be sourced from various places, citing the example of Afghanistan, due to high demand.
Citing the example of Philippines where more than 2,000 drug users and peddlers were shot dead, he stated that if war on drugs could be taken, same action could be initiated, adding however that since sovereignty was not obtained, decision could not be taken.
About possible forceful erection of wall on the Indo-Myanmar border by the Central government, he remarked “Let them do it, Nagas will decide what to do,” emphasising a united and firm stance.
He asserted that even if the wall was erected, Nagas would not be affected much since it could be taken down in one night if needed.
He maintained that India alone could not construct a border wall, but should be collectively done, wondering whether this would be done collectively by governments of the two countries.
On Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh’s appeal to the Centre to abrogate the FMR, Niki questioned the silence of the United Naga Council (UNC) when walls were erected. He alleged that since Singh had no relationship with the tribes in Myanmar, the latter had shown no concern for their welfare.
On the apparent silence of MLAs and organisations from Eastern Nagaland on the issue, he said he would respond to the situation after assessing it further.
Asked whether the abrogation of FMR would change the direction of Naga peace Talks, he replied that it would have no affect.
Acknowledging the complexities vis-à-vis the protracted Naga political talks, Niki wondered about the viability of a solution, given that two separate agreements had been signed by the Centre with two separate entities.
“Which one will be taken and which will be rejected?” he wondered.
Asked about the group’s position with the Centre, he reiterated NSCN/GPRN (K)’s commitment to the Nagas, emphasising inclusivity that went beyond the Naga political groups (NPGs), and to consider the interests of all Naga tribes. He clarified that his faction would not engage in dialogue until inclusiveness was achieved.
He reiterated his earlier statement that the demand of Nagas would be the charter of demands for his group.
He stressed unity among Nagas under the platforms of Naga Hoho, Naga Mothers’ Association, and Naga Students’ Federation, fearing that the existence of separate frontal organisations could hinder the effectiveness of any agreement.
Referring to the apparent lack of inclusive talks among NPGs, he cited two key reasons – the stubbornness of national workers and weakness of Naga people. He urged Naga public leaders to take decisive action, appealing NPGs to come together and present a unified stance.
He claimed that representatives of the Centre and some intellectuals had approached him with requests to initiate inclusiveness among all NPGs. However, he clarified that he did not pursue this initiative, dispelling any notions of being associated with what he deemed as a propaganda.
Narrating on how his group came into a ceasefire agreement with the Centre, he stated that due to the pressure from frontal and church organisations for an inclusive solution, the NSCN/GPRN had signed the deal.
Asked whether his organisation was open to coming together with all other NPGs under one umbrella, he questioned under which banner would they unite.
“Whether under Agreed Position or Framework Agreement, or the banner of Naga people’s interest?” he wanted to know.
He reiterated that Nagas should take a stern and clear decision and unite.
He claimed that Nagaland had only three factions – NSCN (I-M), NNPGs and NSCN (K).
With regard to Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) advocating coming together of all NPGs, he commented that church leaders, being a silent spectator, would have been better for Nagas.
Further, Niki expressed scepticism regarding the constitution of the Core Committee on Naga Political Issue (CCoNPI) by the state government, asserting that the Naga political issue was beyond the state government.
He expressed amusement at the idea of CCoNPI comprising elected members who had sworn allegiance to the Constitution of India, working for independence and a solution by engaging with authorities in Delhi.
Expressing doubts about the effectiveness and feasibility of the committee, he questioned whether the elected members, who were bound by their oath to the Indian constitution, would agree to step down if a resolution was achieved.
He clarified that his sentiments were not driven by ill-feeling toward any particular political party or elected members.