N Kitovi Zhimomi-led Working Committee (WC), Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) has asserted that there could be no question of comparison between the Framework Agreement and Agreed Position.
Reacting to a recent statement by the NSCN (I-M) comparing the two documents, the WC pointed out that the Agreed Position was clear and without any ambiguity or misleading statements, as it had been agreed by the central government to “Recognise the historical and political rights of the Nagas to self-determine their future in consonance with their distinct identity” to resolve the Indo-Naga political issue considering the “contemporary Political realities”.
The committee clarified that it did not want to compare the Agreed position with the Framework Agreement, which signed on August 3, 2015 and stated “The Indo-Naga political conflict is about six decades old”. The committee termed this as a total betrayal to the thousands of Nagas who had laid down their lives before 1955, adding that the NSCN (I-M) had very casually forgotten the plebiscite of 1951 – or 64 years prior to 2015.
According to the committee, the Framework Agreement had also very nonchalantly forgotten that the Nagas declared independence on August 14, 1947 – or 67 years before August 3, 2015. The agreement also completely ignored the submission of memorandum by the Nagas to Simon Commission in 1929 – or 86 years before 2015.
Claiming that the NSCN (I-M) in the Framework Agreement had clearly stated that it had “Understood and appreciated the intricacies of the Indian system”, the WC said this meant that the earlier demand was not possible. But the group was now deliberately quoting all these events mindlessly that had not featured in the agreement, just like it had conveniently forgotten to mention flag, constitution, integration and instead talked about “shared sovereignty” and “contemporary reality”.
The WC stated, “What are they referring this Competency to? Why is the Competency mentioned in the Framework Agreement not brought to the public domain till today? Shared sovereignty has no rational meaning on a political dialogue. They have simply hurried forward to ‘greatly satisfy themselves’ to ‘successfully’ conclude the dialogue with India, thus totally surrendering all political rights and values of the Nagas.”
Now, after signing such a document, the WC accused the NSCN (I-M) of further trying to drag back the issues that the latter had either forgotten themselves or probably not known.
It requested all peace-loving Nagas to take time and effort to go through and compare the Agreed Position and Frame work Agreement for a clear and distinct understanding.
Further, alleging that the NSCN (I-M) had no idea about the history of the Naga movement and Naga people, the WC said the group’s leaders could not be blamed, especially those Nagas from Manipur who were not aware of the tremendous trials and tribulations that had been going on in other parts of Naga Hills, presently Nagaland.
The committee mentioned the group had conveniently forgotten the vital facts of the history of Naga political movement, including the plebiscite that was not participated by any Naga tribe of Manipur, noting that the Nagas in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland were all under same one union.
Hence, the WC suggested Naga brothers and sisters of the neighbouring states to leave the issues of Nagaland to the Nagas of the state. As the Framework Agreement was signed much before the Agreed Position, and the issues of freedom, independent sovereignty and integration of Naga-inhabited areas were not mentioned in it, the committee lamented that all these issues had been buried through the agreement.
As it was now too late to talk about the same issues, the committee insisted on being practical and prepare for the solution that the people could determine their own future without any outsider’s intervention in their respective states, as they knew what would be best for their younger generation in their own respective areas.