President of Naga National Council (NNC) Adino Phizo stated that there could be no meaningful dialogue between the two nations until the “Government of India (GOI) rescinds the 1972 ‘illegal’ badge served on Naga National Council (NNC) and the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN).”
According to NEPS, the NNC supremo through email from her London residence pointed out that she was yet to see seriousness of government of India in “seeking an honorable solution to protracted conflict” between the two nations.
On Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio’s role in Naga issue, Adino said “imposed puppet state government in Nagaland is symptomatic of Indian government hypocrisy.” She said, “Rio and his colleagues talk much about playing a constructive role as facilitators to bring ‘an honorable solution’ to the protracted conflict with India but I am yet to see any action to that effect.”
On NSCN (IM) General Secretary Th Muivah’s recent talks with PM and Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, NNC President said, “In the affairs of Nagaland, Th Muivah is a nonentity. He is from Ukhrul district, in Manipur state, India and has no political root in Nagaland.”
She further disclosed that only after the Cease-fire Agreement in 1964, NNC and FGN advanced in dispensing with hitherto Inner Line Permit (ILP) mandatory for Naga family in Naga inhabited areas (NIA) to enter Nagaland. “While the national status of NIA is yet to be settled, it does not help that a section of Naga people could clearly be seen muddle along politicizing the issue before all round consensus and callously inflame age-old friendship with neighboring people,” she stated.
Reacting to India’s statement to grant more autonomy to resolve Naga issue, the NNC Chief said, “In recognition of Naga sovereignty, over the years the Indian leaders invited NNC: to join the Union of India, to be incorporated in the Constitution of India, offered ‘special status within India’, blank cheque for development of Nagaland, President of India, Ambassador to any named country and so on; it may sound unwise to have refused such seemingly generous proposals, but India has no monopoly on sovereignty over another nation.”
Reacting to Center’s interlocutor RS Pandey’s “concept of shared sovereignty” to resolve Naga issue, Adino said she saw “no evidence” on his idea of “shared sovereignty” that India was willing to enter into with a neighboring country.
Reiterating that NNC was not a political party, NNC President stated it was the embodiment of Naga body politic with historical mooring in Naga democratic tradition. By virtue of the historic 16 May 1951 universal Naga consensus to opt for a common Naga identity and affirmation of heretofore Nagaland declaration to stay independent on 14 August 1947, immutably entrusted with NNC, “no Naga can deny NNC mandate. As the keeper of the soul of Naga nation, NNC has the final say on war and peace,” she said.
Nagaland was a peaceful, self-sufficient and hospitable country before Indian invasion in 1954. “Is it not ironic that after six decades of unremitting Indian occupation army militarised tyranny in Nagaland, Indian politicians and officials constantly lecture peace to Naga people?” she questioned.