Dimapur, August 10 (MExN): In a sharp rebuttal to the NSCN (IM), the Working Committee of Naga National Political Groups (WC, NNPGs) today asserted the superiority of the ‘Agreed Position’ (AP) over the 'Framework Agreement’ (FA), asserting that it is a clear roadmap in line with the desire of the Naga people.
The response came days after NSCN-IM chairman Q Tuccu, speaking at the 10th anniversary of the FA on August 3, reaffirmed the group’s commitment to the agreement, calling it India’s formal recognition of Naga sovereign rights and cautioning against any dilution of its political essence. He also stated that the FA and AP are ‘poles apart’ and ruled out working with the WC, NNPGs, branding cooperation a “dangerous proposition” and alleging that the Committee operates under the GoI’s agency.
In a strongly worded rejoinder, the WC, NNPGs asserted 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.”
It also ‘agreed’ that the FA and AP are ‘poles apart’ by pointing out that while the latter is a “blueprint” for the future relationship between the GoI and Nagas, the FA “remains an undeclared document fully aware Nagas will not accept its inner details.”
The FA has become a “secret agenda incapable of standing scrutiny before the Naga people” and was designed as an “exclusive closed-door subject of select few within the NSCN (IM) set-up,” it added.
The WC, NNPGs further claimed the NSCN-IM’s push for a separate flag and constitution was an “insurance policy, an emotional tool to continue transferring Nagaland's wealth to acquire assets in Ukhrul and elsewhere” and a bargaining chip for constitutional guarantee as part of a political solution.
“It is absolutely clear that NSCN-IM is not for solution… They are for Intangki Reserve Forest, to control Nagaland, Manipur, and Assam corridor,” the WC, NNPGs alleged.
According to the WC, NNPGs, the GoI has also conveyed to the NSCN (IM) leadership that the Intangki Reserve Forest belongs to the Naga people and it cannot be transferred to the latter “in any manner under the shadow of Pan Naga Hoho (PNH).”
“The WC, NNPGs foresaw this plan, pointed it out during negotiations and reaffirmed that under no circumstances should the Intangki Reserve Forest be disturbed post solution,” it asserted.
‘Agreed Position’ a clear roadmap
To this end, the WC, NNPGs stated that in response to the Naga people’s demand for an early, honourable, and acceptable political solution, it negotiated the AP with a clear roadmap that reflects the aspirations of the Naga people.
It corrected the “political blunders committed by FA authors” and the WC, NNPG entities went to the Naga people and sought what they wanted from the GoI, it maintained.
The Indigenous Tribes in Nagaland, Indigenous Naga tribes in Manipur, Indigenous Naga tribes in Arunachal, and Indigenous Nagas in Assam are now politically conscious Naga brethren and are privy to the contours of the AP, it asserted.
The negotiated Status Paper is with the Apex Naga tribal Hohos, village headmen, elected representatives, student bodies, and church leaders in all Naga areas, it added.
As per the WC, NNPGs, the existing states and international boundaries within Naga ancestral lands are legacies of the past and a part of contemporary political realities, and these were primary subjects needing special political arrangements deserving tremendous political and administrative autonomy during the “intensive negotiations.”
“The WC, NNPGs put pen to paper and entrenched Naga history and identity. To the GoI, it is either the voice of the Naga people or the noise of the few,” it added.
The WC, NNPGs also accused the NSCN-IM of sidelining earlier reconciliatory pacts brokered by the Forum for Naga Reconciliation, including the 2009 Covenant of Reconciliation, 2011 Naga Concordant, and 2014 Lenten Agreement, and signing the FA in 2015 without consulting apex tribal bodies, churches, civil society, or the broader Naga public.
Today, all these FNR-guided agreements lay in tatters, it added.
It alleged that key details of the FA remain undisclosed because its true objectives would be rejected by the Naga people while dismissed 'Nagalim' as a “utopian term, irrelevant and non-existent in the Naga history pages.”
A ‘Common Draft’ for Naga solution?
Meanwhile, the WC, NNPGs acknowledged the existence of a ‘Common Draft’ for convergence of all stakeholders but categorically stated that it is the initiative of the GoI for an “inclusive Naga solution.”
“The WC, NNPGs have acknowledged it in principle, provided the draft does not disturb the core fabric of the 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,” it asserted.
It also pointed out that while the GoI says it is preparing a "Common Draft" based on both the FA and the AP, the NSCN-IM’s description of working with the NNPGs as a “dangerous proposition” suggests they oppose the Naga solution.
“Simply put, they are against the Naga people and want to sabotage the Naga solution. It is clearly visible that the Naga solution will jeopardise their (NSCN-IM) secret plan,” it contended.
