Thursday, August 18, 2022

GoI divides Nagas, delays solution: NSCN (I-M)

NSCN (I-M) through its MIP has said there is “utter confusion” and discontentment among Nagas on the “Indo-Naga peace talk” which has led to “pointing accusing fingers on the very people who brought the ceasefire and the peace process” as people misconstrued that peace talks have been delayed due to flag and constitution.
However, MIP said that was not so since both flag and constitution were the “component ingredients embraced in the Framework Agreement (FA). To clarify the matter, MIP said in official talks neither R.N. Ravi nor A.K. Mishra had ever stated that there was no flag nor constitution in the FA.
Rather, MIP said “flip flopping habitual betraying character” of the government of India took center stage when it sowed the seeds of confusion “in order to disown the FA.”
MIP said the government of India was therefore “entirely responsible for the delay” and that it (GoI) need to come clean since Nagas have had enough of the government of India’s “overly pretentious appearance on the Indo-Naga peace talk.”
According to MIP, the government of India caused division within Naga people when it signed two agreements- Framework Agreement and later Agreed Position. MIP asked, if the government of India was “genuinely sincere” for an early solution, then why had it singed “two agreements for one people and one common issue?”
MIP said while both the agreements were parallel, yet one was “within Indian constitution” and the other “outside the purview of the Indian constitution.”
MIP highlighted salient features in favour of FA such as: (1) Government of India has recognised the “uniqueness of the Naga history and its position, that Nagas were never part of Indian union either by conquest or consent. It therefore asked, how can the Naga national movement be without flag and constitution?
(2) Citing universal principle that in democracy, sovereignty lies with the people, MIP said it should be noted that FA acknowledged and accepted the “declaration of Naga Independence Day on 14th August 1947 and the Plebiscite of 1951” and therefore, the flag and constitution are the embodiment of the FA.
(3) According to MIP, “sharing of sovereign powers” in the FA was a recognition and acceptance of Naga sovereignty and not a case of “Indian constitutional provision granting power division”. MIP questioned, how can it be said that there is no flag or constitution when every sovereign nation has its own flag and constitution?
(4) MIP said “new relationship” is a declaration of a “new arrangement” which meant there cannot be settlement within the existing Indian constitution and so the term “new relationship” was agreed upon.
(5) According to MIP, “coexistence” defined two people to coexist with understanding and conditional arrangement.
(6) It said “two entities” defined two separate people so how can it be said that there is no flag and constitution in the FA?
MIP said the irony of all was that this matter was resolved long back but the RSS factor came in between, that questioned how could there be two flags and two constitutions? According to MIP, the manifesto of RSS/Hindutva sharply contradicted the principle agreement of the FA.
It said these “unwarranted policy the Government of India is testing the nerve of the Nagas and delaying the whole process’.
MIP said it was time that the government of India make its stand very clear on which one of the two agreements would be used for the final agreement.
By simply inviting the NSCN(I-M) to Delhi for “peace talk without going through the detoxification process will not help expedite the Naga political solution”, it said.
MIP asked whether the “legitimacy of the FA as proclaimed before the world by the Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi be put in the bargaining level with another agreement which was signed surreptitiously?”

Most Read