Terms it a ‘disarming operation’ in response to provocation
NSCN/GPRN-K (Khango-Vusshe) has termed the May 23 incident as “unfortunate”, but clarified that it was in response to NSCN (R) finance kilonser Mughato Chophy’s provocation several times.
Addressing a section of the media at the group’s Ceasefire Supervisory Board (CFSB) office in Thilixu, leaders of NSCN-K (Khango-Vusshe) maintained that their actions on May 23 was a “befitting reciprocation” on Mughato’s repeated claims that he possessed enough cadres, arms, and ammunition to flush out NSCN-K (Khango-Vusshe) members from Dimapur.
They asked whether this was not challenging and insulting enough and weren’t these provocation enough and was it not defaming NSCN (K)? One of the leaders added that as a “revolutionary government” they were bound to act against any element or adversary perceived as a threat to the” national security and the people.”
They claimed that the NSCN (K-V) government had enough proof of the provocation, but refused to share them for “security reasons”. They also categorically denied allegations that the incident was an assassination attempt on Mughato but only an intention to disarm him and prevent any potential escalation that could jeopardise peace.
The spokesperson posed that if the intention of NSCN (K-V) government was as alleged by NSCN (R) then people should decide since the rival admitted that they were overpowered and helpless when it would have led NSCN (K-V) members to inflict serious causalities on them. One of them asked why was Mughato not hunted down when the rivals claimed that he was inside the house? He said the NSCN (K-V) had seized the arms and left the premises as the objective was only to disarm Mughato.
They said that when the NSCN (K-V) cadres were exiting the area after the operation, one NSCN (R) member identified as Vetokhu provoked them by calling out that weapons were inside. This led to NSCN (K-V) cadres firing two to three rounds as a warning. They pointed out that the CCTV footage disproved the allegation that multiple rounds were fired indiscriminately.
The group in particular criticised Mughato for lodging an FIR regarding the incident, calling the move “unethical” and a mark of “immaturity” for someone holding a high-ranking post in a revolutionary government.
Asked on the allegation made by the NSCN (R) that the raid was led by NSCN-K’s vice-president Khekato Kinny, the leaders clarified that Kinny was not a part of the operation, and that he was at his residence.
They claimed that many of the names mentioned in the FIR were not a part of the incident.
One of them said NSCN(K-V) questions the credibility as to how Mughato (not a Naga by blood), a kilonser himself in the Government of NSCN(R) would stoop so low as to drag the Naga national political issue from the Ministry of External affairs to Home Affairs?.
Responding to claims by NSCN(R) that it was a functional organisation where all decisions were made through the collective leadership’s directive in accordance with the ahza, NSCN(K-V) leaders asked if it implied that the FIR was lodged at the directive of the group’s collective leadership and for which Naga public should decide and ponder upon if it was done so.
NSCN/GPRN-K (Khango-Vusshe) asked that if the FIR was lodged in individual capacity, then how could a single non-Naga bring shame to the Naga issue and tarnish the spirit of revolutionary ethics as Mughato could be labelled “Naga’s adversary agent”.
Repeating the claim that Mughato was not Naga by blood, NSCN (K-V) leaders also questioned the legitimacy of his role in NSCN (R), particularly as a finance kilonser.
They asked the NSCN (R) collective leadership as to how they could utilise the service of an individual who was not a Naga by blood to such a responsible position and wondered if this was not a mockery of the Naga movement when thousands of precious Naga blood had been shed in defending the sacred cause?.
They maintained that the fate of “true Naga by blood revolutionaries can never be allowed to be determined by such individuals” and pondered about the safety of the Nagas if such person who is not a Naga by blood, was allowed to carry such combat weapons in the name of Naga revolutionary struggle.
They further referred to earlier resolutions passed by Sumi national workers of NSCN (R), including a meeting held on December 2, 2024, and another on January 31, 2025, which explicitly opposed non-Nagas impersonating Nagas for political gain.
They said the resolutions emphasised that identity was a serious matter and that no non-Naga should be allowed to hold influential positions in the Naga freedom struggle.
Acknowledging the statements made by various civil society organisations (CSOs) regarding the incident, the NSCN (K-V) leaders urged the CSOs to assess all facts and circumstances before issuing statements.
Regarding the Unity Village Council’s warning to all groups against violating the ceasefire, they questioned how Mughato could store “enough weapons” in his house and still not violate the ceasefire ground rules.
Terming the possession of arms and ammunition as a gross violation of ceasefire terms on the part of Mughato, they explained that the NSCN-K (Khango-Vusshe) had to disarm him since he intended to use those weapons, potentially making the situation volatile.
They also questioned the silence of the chairman of Unity Village Council on the issue, alleging that he was the brother-in-law of Mughato.
Regarding the May 24 incident in which Assam Rifles (AR) personnel had reportedly cordoned off the premises of NSCN-K (Khango-Vusshe)’s CFSB office, the leaders clarified that the AR personnel came to inquire whether the cadres mentioned in the FIR were present in the CFSB office.
They claimed that discussions were held outside the gate in consultation with CFSB and CFGM/CFSB chairman.
NSCN-K (Khango-Vusshe) leaders sternly warned that if Mughato was further armed, or was in possession of sophisticated weapons, they would not hesitate to initiate appropriate measures against him, asserting that the government would not remain mute spectator when the integrity and national security of the government was under threat.
They further demanded unconditional apology from Mughato for what they described as “bringing shame and tarnishing the Naga political issue to its lowest ebb”.