The Working Committee, Naga National Political Groups (WC, NNPGs) has categorically stated that “at no point of time did the WC, NNPGs, officially or otherwise, express a notion or a desire to be a part of any agreement where NSCN-IM was a party to.”
In a press statement issued today, the WC, NNPGs addressed the term “Common Draft” being circulated for the convergence of all stakeholders, clarifying that it was “the initiative of the Government of India (GoI) for an inclusive Naga solution.” The Committee said it had “acknowledged it in principle, provided the draft do not disturb the core fabric of AGREED POSITION of 17th November 2017 as it is the only historical Agreement which distinctly pinpoints the Nagas’ right to self-determine their future, while respecting contemporary political realities.”
The WC, NNPGs also expressed “due appreciation” to the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) for facilitating the Covenant of Reconciliation (13 June 2009), Naga Concordant (26 August 2011) and Lenten Agreement (28 March 2014). However, it alleged that “the NSCN-IM leadership utilised these agreements only to reflect legitimacy and impress New Delhi.”
According to the statement, “The GoI acted in haste too as NSCN-IM delegation flew to Delhi without a single stakeholder from the FNR, Apex Tribal bodies, the Church or civil society groups, and signed the infamous FA on 03rd August 2015. The rest, they say, is history.”
The WC, NNPGs maintained that “there was absolutely no consultation with the Naga tribes prior to signing the document,” and claimed that “even today, Nagas are not privy to their real political conversation.” Calling the term ‘Nagalim’ “a utopian term, irrelevant and non-existent in the Naga history pages,” the group noted, “no wonder ‘Nagaland’ and not ‘Nagalim’ was used in the FA headline.”
On the Framework Agreement, the Committee alleged that “from the very beginning it was designed as an exclusive closed-door subject of select few within NSCN (IM) set-up,” and that “the real motive over NSCN IM’s Flag and Constitution… is more of an insurance policy, an emotional tool to continue transferring Nagaland’s wealth to acquire assets in Ukhrul and elsewhere.”
It accused NSCN-IM of planning to “transfer Intangki reserve forest stretch and surrounding areas, create a township for Nagas from Manipur only” and to “administer the area by senior Tangkhul members wielding political and administrative power through new political arrangement.”
The WC, NNPGs asserted that “GoI has conveyed to IM leadership that the Intangki reserve forest belongs to the Naga people and GoI cannot transfer to NSCN IM members from Manipur in any manner under the shadow of Pan Naga Hoho (PNH).”
Declaring that “under no circumstances should the Intangki reserve forest be disturbed post solution,” the WC, NNPGs alleged that “NSCN IM is NOT FOR SOLUTION! Not for Naga Flag, not for Naga Constitution, not for Naga Integration. They are for Intangki Reserve Forest, to control Nagaland, Manipur and Assam corridor!”
On the Common Draft being prepared by the GoI from both FA and AP, the Committee claimed, “Now NSCN-IM says it is dangerous to work or sit together with NNPGs. Simply put, they are against the Naga people and want to sabotage Naga solution.”
The WC, NNPGs said it had “corrected the political blunders committed by FA authors” by going “to the Naga people” and making the contours of the Agreed Position known to “Apex Naga tribal Hohos, village headmen, elected representatives, student bodies and church leaders in all Naga areas.”
Concluding, the Committee reiterated that “existing states and international boundaries within Naga ancestral lands are legacies of the past and a part of contemporary political realities” and that these lands “deserve tremendous political and administrative autonomy.” To the Government of India, it said, “it is either the voice of the Naga people or the noise of the few.”