Group says any suspension or removal of Article 371(A) would take Nagaland back to “pre-statehood status”; claims Indo-Naga negotiations have concluded, pending Centre’s announcement
The Working Committee (WC) of the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) has warned against attempts to undermine the Agreed Position and Status Paper through what it described as “petty MOUs”, asserting that Article 371(A) is the “only link” between the Union of India and the Naga people.
In a statement issued through its Media Cell, the WC, NNPGs said the Government of India must put a stop to attempts to go against the spirit and principles of the Agreed Position and Status Paper and its competencies through what it termed “petty MOUs”.
“WC, NNPGs will confront any force that aims to undermine the Agreed Position and Status Paper,” the statement said, adding that the Nagas have “never been kind to intruders and political bullies.”
The group also said Article 371(A), which provides special constitutional safeguards for Nagaland and its inhabitants, must be viewed in the context of the political understanding reached between the Government of India and Naga representatives.
“It must be clearly understood by the Indian Government that Article 371(A) is the only link between the union of India and the Naga people,” the WC, NNPGs said.
It warned that any question of the temporary or permanent suspension, or complete demolition, of Article 371(A) would “deem Nagaland to a pre-statehood status”, in which case, it said, Nagaland and all Nagas would have the right to once again invoke the spirit of January 10, 1929, August 14, 1947 and May 16, 1951.
The statement also maintained that the Indo-Naga political negotiations between the Government of India and the WC, NNPGs had “successfully concluded”, pending an announcement by the Centre.
According to the group, the negotiations had agreed in principle on a political solution invoking, entrenching and adding clauses in the relevant instruments of the Indian Constitution under the federal structure as two entities.
The WC, NNPGs said the understanding potentially identifies and corrects what it described as “glaring discrepancies” between the constitutional format and the non-implementation of clauses on the ground, particularly the “overlapping and visible void” concerning Article 371(A).
On natural resources, the group said the Government of India and the WC, NNPGs had agreed in principle on a blueprint for how natural resources, “above the ground and below”, including strategic minerals and rare earths, would be utilised.
It said natural resources, exploration and extraction were for “post-solution Naga generations”.
The WC, NNPGs further said political agreements between the Government of India and the Nagas, whether reached in the past or in recent years, must be accorded due respect and implemented, arguing that such political documents speak for generations and allow Nagas and Indians to co-exist in harmony.
The statement recalled that the Framework Agreement between the Government of India and the NSCN (IM) was signed on August 3, 2015, while the Agreed Position with the WC, NNPGs was signed on November 17, 2017.
The group also referred to the role of former Government of India interlocutor R.N. Ravi during the 2017–19 political negotiations, saying discussions had dwelled on the idea of an inclusive India and involved recognition of the respective historical and political positions of the Government of India and the Nagas.
The WC, NNPGs said the Naga people bring to the negotiating table their own history, identity, culture and ancestral land to defend and protect, and maintained that only through a correct political solution and recognition of each other’s historical and political positions could the Government of India and the Nagas co-exist with mutual respect.
It further appealed to the political leadership of India to uphold an inclusive India based on “unity in diversity”, while calling for an early resolution of the prolonged Indo-Naga political conflict.
The group said such a resolution would be an immediate confidence-building step and would go a long way in convincing the “other India” to feel at home, respected and recognised.
