Misinterpretations of Indo-Naga peace process complicating matters: WC NNPG

3 - minutes read |

It argued that while the Agreed Position was finalized with prior consultations and endorsements from all Naga stakeholders and remains transparent, the Framework Agreement is exclusive to NSCN-IM

KRC TIMES NE Desk

The Working Committee of Naga National Political Groups (WC NNPG), led by Gen. (Retd.) MB Neokpao Konyak, on Wednesday, stated that insensitivities and misinterpretations surrounding the Indo-Naga peace process have only complicated matters instead of expediting a resolution.

 With a solution to the Naga issue still elusive, the committee stressed the urgent need for political consensus among Nagas to achieve an inclusive and lasting settlement.

 The WC NNPG attributed the lack of political unanimity to factionalism and internal conflicts within Naga groups, both external and internal. It emphasized that a united approach was essential to move forward.

 Highlighting its own efforts, the committee claimed that through extensive consultations and endorsement from various Naga stakeholders, it had engaged in political dialogue with the Government of India (GoI). As a result, the WC NNPG has formulated a comprehensive political roadmap for an honourable and inclusive solution based on the “historical and political rights” of the Nagas, while considering contemporary political realities. It pointed out that the formal political dialogue between the GoI and Naga negotiating groups was successfully concluded on October 31, 2019, underscoring the commitment to an early resolution.

 Regarding the recent letter sent to Union Home Minister Amit Shah by 21 opposition Rajya Sabha MPs, the Working Committee stated that this move confirms that the Framework Agreement and the contemplated political solution remain within the ambit of the Indian Union. It recalled that the Framework Agreement was previously briefed to both a “select committee” of the Indian Parliament and the Nagaland Legislative Assembly by then-Interlocutor R.N. Ravi.

 Expressing confidence in the MPs’ understanding of the Framework Agreement, the WC NNPG asserted that they would not support any agreement that threatens India’s “national integrity, Constitution, or sovereignty” under any circumstance. However, while welcoming the MPs’ endorsement of an early resolution, it cautioned against overstating the significance of their move or assuming that it legitimizes the Framework Agreement over the Agreed Position.

 The committee stressed that both agreements—Framework Agreement and Agreed Position—were signed under the same Interlocutor, empowered by the same Government of India and the Prime Minister, over the same Indo-Naga political issue. It argued that while the Agreed Position was finalized with prior consultations and endorsements from all Naga stakeholders and remains transparent, the Framework Agreement is exclusive to NSCN-IM. The negotiation process for the latter, it claimed, was kept isolated, opaque, and accessible only to a select few NSCN-IM leaders.

 “The so-called Framework Agreement remains shrouded in secrecy, and not a single Naga stakeholder is privy to its full content or the so-called ‘competencies.’ It neither commands the endorsement of the Naga people nor represents their collective will. It remains a mysterious document, hailed only by IM loyalists,” the WC NNPG stated.

Meanwhile, the Working Committee urged the Global Naga Forum (GNF) to clarify the details of the Framework Agreement and justify why the Agreed Position—which has been endorsed by the Naga people—should be considered a counter-agreement. It also called upon the GNF to explain the concept of “shared sovereignty, contemporary realities, and co-existence”, as committed by NSCN-IM in the Framework Agreement, and how these terms define Naga sovereignty and independence.

 The WC NNPG accused GNF of fueling division among Naga political groups by selectively supporting NSCN-IM while ignoring efforts toward an inclusive solution. It stated that GNF’s stance was obstructing genuine reconciliation and unity among Naga groups rather than facilitating it.

 Further questioning the GNF’s role, the WC NNPG demanded a public clarification on whether the forum truly represents the global Naga community or merely serves as an extension of NSCN-IM.

Promotional | Subscribe KRC TIMES e-copy

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related news

×

Hello!

Click one of our contacts below to chat on WhatsApp

× How can I help you?