The 16 Point Agreement, the basis on which Nagaland was granted statehood under the Union of India, said to have been signed between the Naga People’s Convention and the Government of India on July 26 of 1960, need to be revisited today, at least to satisfy the curiosity and interest of political science students and history buffs.
Although it is referred to as an agreement, some say that it was just a memorandum. While the content of the 16 Point Agreement is available in public domain, a signed copy of the ‘agreement’ is not. Maybe that is the reason why some say it was a memorandum and not an agreement. No doyen of Naga history has been able to present an indisputable argument or interpretation of the 16 Point Agreement.
Hence, it remains one of the most debated and controversial documents till today in as far as the Naga political issue is concerned. It will be interesting to read the interpretation of the 16 Point Agreement word for word, point by point, and the reason/s why some of the points have not been fulfilled to this day.
For instance, Point 1 of the agreement clearly says that the territories then known as Naga Hills-Tuensang Area under the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area Act, 1957 shall form the state of Nagaland, whereas Point 13 mentions the consolidation of contiguous Naga areas. This seem to indicate that the signatories of the agreement knew from the beginning that the Naga areas outside of the then Naga Hills-Tuensang Area needed to be integrated with the newly formed state of Nagaland. The same Point 13 says that, while Article 3 and 4 of the Indian Constitution provides for the integration of the contiguous Naga areas, the Government of India at that stage was not possible to make any commitments in this regard.
Again, Point 2 says that Nagaland shall be under the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India. Political pundits should clarify as to why this point has not been honored and why or how Nagaland is not under the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India today. Another interesting observation is that Point 7, which talks about Acts of the Parliament and Point 10, which talks about administration of (undivided) Tuensang district finds mention in the much hyped Article 371(A), while the other relevant points like Point 2 and Point 16 does not. Point 12 of the agreement is another interesting, or rather unfulfilled, point. It talks about consolidation of Naga forest areas that were transferred out from the then Naga Hills-Tuensang Area. This can perhaps be regarded as one of the reasons why the Nagaland-Assam border disputes remain unresolved to date.
For better or for worse, the 16 Point Agreement happened and, therefore, the doubts surrounding it must be cleared. But who will pass the verdict?