Imphal | July 1 : Even though the June 30 ‘tripartite talk’ was inconclusive, the United Naga Council (UNC) has expressed its optimism that its effort will bear fruit. Informing Newmai News Network a day after the talk at Senapati, the UNC said it sincerely appreciates the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India (GOI), for their undaunted effort in convening the “3rd Tripartite Talk of 30th June 2011 at Tahamzam” (Senapati district headquarters).
“Although strongly resented by the Government of Manipur at the instance of the majority community the talk was held as per letter No. 8/8/2008-NE, Ministry of Home Affairs (NE-Division) dated New Delhi the 23rd June 2011, addressed to the president UNC on the Tripartite Talks to discuss the Memorandum, dated the 14th September 2010, submitted by UNC to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,” the United Naga Council said today.
The Tripartite talk of the 30th June 2011 was inconclusive yet it had paved the way to a more tangible position for the coming talks since both the parties (GOM and UNC) adamantly maintain their political stands, a direct and an unilateral intervention of the GOI is necessitated to manage the political stalemate before the situation goes out our hands. Now, the ball is in the court of the GOI.
The UNC stated that considering historical, constitutional, present political stand and the unalterable/irreversible facts presented to the government of India by the Nagas in Manipur, the UNC is optimistic that the government of India will surely evolve an “Alternative Arrangement” outside the government of Manipur “subject to, pending Final Naga Solution”.
The UNC is looking forward to New Delhi’s assurance given to the “Nagas/tribals” in Manipur, said the UNC.
The issue of “alternative arrangement” for Nagas of Manipur continued to be the bone of contention even as the third tripartite talks between the Central government, Manipur government and United Naga Council (UNC) which concluded yesterday at Senapati in the office of the Deputy Commissioner.
At the meeting the “state delegation asked the UNC delegation to clearly spell out the specifics of the so-called ‘alternative arrangement’ as there is already in place a democratic system of autonomous district council (ADC) to take care of the special needs of the hill districts in the state,” said a statement from the government.
While the UNC persisted with the demand for “alternative arrangement”, “the state government delegation reiterated that the territorial integrity of Manipur was not negotiable.” The planning department and hills department of the state government went to the talk armed with powerpoint presentations to sketch out the achievements of the government, however, “the UNC delegation did not
agree to the proposal.”
A statement from the state government said that Sword Vashum who led the UNC delegation at the talk today “conveyed that alternative arrangement in the form of ADCs was not acceptable to them.”
The state government further maintained that “their (UNC) demand was based on severing of ties with the government of Manipur and suggested bi-partite talks between UNC and the government of India. The suggestion was not accepted by the MHA representatives present in the meeting.”
After the talk ran into something of a deadlock, the government representatives expressed their willingness to continue to engage in discussion “within the framework of the Constitution” and reiterated that the territorial integrity of Manipur was not open for discussion, a stand that was endorsed by the MHA delegate as well.
“Although strongly resented by the Government of Manipur at the instance of the majority community the talk was held as per letter No. 8/8/2008-NE, Ministry of Home Affairs (NE-Division) dated New Delhi the 23rd June 2011, addressed to the president UNC on the Tripartite Talks to discuss the Memorandum, dated the 14th September 2010, submitted by UNC to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,” the United Naga Council said today.
The Tripartite talk of the 30th June 2011 was inconclusive yet it had paved the way to a more tangible position for the coming talks since both the parties (GOM and UNC) adamantly maintain their political stands, a direct and an unilateral intervention of the GOI is necessitated to manage the political stalemate before the situation goes out our hands. Now, the ball is in the court of the GOI.
The UNC stated that considering historical, constitutional, present political stand and the unalterable/irreversible facts presented to the government of India by the Nagas in Manipur, the UNC is optimistic that the government of India will surely evolve an “Alternative Arrangement” outside the government of Manipur “subject to, pending Final Naga Solution”.
The UNC is looking forward to New Delhi’s assurance given to the “Nagas/tribals” in Manipur, said the UNC.
The issue of “alternative arrangement” for Nagas of Manipur continued to be the bone of contention even as the third tripartite talks between the Central government, Manipur government and United Naga Council (UNC) which concluded yesterday at Senapati in the office of the Deputy Commissioner.
At the meeting the “state delegation asked the UNC delegation to clearly spell out the specifics of the so-called ‘alternative arrangement’ as there is already in place a democratic system of autonomous district council (ADC) to take care of the special needs of the hill districts in the state,” said a statement from the government.
While the UNC persisted with the demand for “alternative arrangement”, “the state government delegation reiterated that the territorial integrity of Manipur was not negotiable.” The planning department and hills department of the state government went to the talk armed with powerpoint presentations to sketch out the achievements of the government, however, “the UNC delegation did not
agree to the proposal.”
A statement from the state government said that Sword Vashum who led the UNC delegation at the talk today “conveyed that alternative arrangement in the form of ADCs was not acceptable to them.”
The state government further maintained that “their (UNC) demand was based on severing of ties with the government of Manipur and suggested bi-partite talks between UNC and the government of India. The suggestion was not accepted by the MHA representatives present in the meeting.”
After the talk ran into something of a deadlock, the government representatives expressed their willingness to continue to engage in discussion “within the framework of the Constitution” and reiterated that the territorial integrity of Manipur was not open for discussion, a stand that was endorsed by the MHA delegate as well.
