The Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN) has questioned the status and mandate of the Union Minister of State-led mechanism announced by Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio for the Naga political talks, asking the Centre to clarify whether the new arrangement would replace the existing agreements with Naga political groups.
In a statement issued on Monday, the CNFN questioned Rio’s August 15 announcement that the Government of India had constituted a committee headed by the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs to steer the Naga peace talks.
The forum asked whether the Centre had authorised the chief minister to make the announcement and, if so, in what capacity the announcement was made. It also questioned the Centre’s silence, saying that there had been neither confirmation nor denial from New Delhi.
The CNFN took exception to the Nagaland government’s Political Affairs Committee (PAC) seeking the appointment of a Union Minister of State as interlocutor. It argued that the move could undermine the agreements reached between the Centre and Naga political groups after years of negotiations.
The forum pointed to the Framework Agreement signed between the Centre and NSCN (IM) on August 3, 2015, and the Agreed Position signed with the Working Committee of Naga National Political Groups (WC-NNPGs) on November 17, 2017.
It maintained that the groundwork of negotiations had been completed and negotiations officially closed on October 31, 2019, under the then interlocutor and Governor, R N Ravi.
The CNFN said the two agreements were subsequently placed before the Nagaland Legislative Assembly during its January 2020 session through the Governor’s address and adopted through a Motion of Thanks.
The forum argued that the appointment of a new political interlocutor or mechanism could imply that the earlier agreements were being set aside and fresh negotiations contemplated.
“The very PAC’s demand implies that all those efforts of years invested by the successive Interlocutors and the Naga negotiators… are literally considered worthless and therefore treated as trash,” the statement said.
The CNFN accused the Nagaland government headed by Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio and the NSCN (IM) of acting as “anti-solution lobbyists” and alleged that their positions on the proposed new arrangement had weakened the Naga political process.
The forum specifically referred to NSCN (IM) Deputy Ato Kilonser VS Atem’s endorsement of the PAC resolution and the chief minister’s announcement. It said Atem’s position was at odds with NSCN (IM) Chairman Q Tuccu’s reiteration of support for the Framework Agreement in his Naga Independence Day address.
The CNFN demanded that the NSCN (IM) clarify whether it continued to stand by the Framework Agreement, warning that citizens would no longer tolerate what it termed “exploitative patriotism.”
It maintained that the signatories to the Agreed Position continued to seek an early settlement based on what had already been agreed.
The forum also questioned the role of the PAC in the peace process, arguing that it was a facilitator and could not replace the Naga political negotiators. It said the PAC lacked the locus standi to superimpose itself over the actual negotiators or bypass resolutions adopted by the elected 60-member Nagaland Legislative Assembly.
The CNFN further alleged that the state government and NSCN (IM) had earlier “lobbied hard” for the removal of RN Ravi, which it said dealt a “devastating blow” to the logical conclusion of the peace process, after which the Centre did not appoint an interlocutor of equivalent political status.
The forum also raised concerns over the continuing situation faced by the public, stating that while official ceasefires existed between the Centre and Naga political groups, there was “hardly any ceasefire” for ordinary citizens facing multiple taxation, kidnappings for ransom, threats and harassment by armed tax collectors.
It said Dimapur, once a thriving commercial hub, had been reduced to a “dying city” after remaining a haven for anti-social elements for decades.
The CNFN questioned whether any new ministerial mechanism would mean a fresh round of negotiations and asked the Centre to explicitly state whether the 2015 Framework Agreement and 2017 Agreed Position remained the basis of the Naga political process or were being officially superseded.
The forum said the public deserved clarity on the actual status and mandate of the reported MoS-led mechanism.
