The CCYO has sought an impartial inquiry into the alleged victimisation of Vezhoto Hesuh and a INR1 lakh demand for his release, while raising concerns over wildlife conservation and customary rights.
DIMAPUR — The Centre Chakhesang Youth Organisation (CCYO) has expressed serious concern over the alleged victimisation of Vezhoto Hesuh by the Forest department and called for an impartial inquiry into the allegation that INR 1 lakh was demanded for his release.
In a statement, the organisation urged the authorities to ensure that any action against citizens is based on clear evidence of wrongdoing and carried out in a fair, transparent and lawful manner.
It also called for the rights, liberty and dignity of law-abiding citizens to be protected.
The CCYO described Hesuh as a responsible youth and active conservationist who has contributed to grassroots awareness of flora and fauna.
It argued that his social media posts expressing love and appreciation for animals should not, in themselves, be treated as criminal offences.
Also read: PYO condemns detention of youth by Nagaland Forest department
“Love for animals is a virtue to be encouraged, not punished,” the organisation stated, adding that admiration for wildlife does not, by itself, constitute hunting, possession, abetment or a violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
The organisation expressed concern that action without clear evidence could discourage young people from participating in conservation efforts and create fear among those who genuinely care for nature.
It cautioned that such an approach could be viewed as a misuse of law.
The CCYO also demanded a proper inquiry into the alleged INR1 lakh demand, stating that any demand by an official without first establishing that an offence had been committed and proven in accordance with law would be “an extremely serious matter requiring an impartial inquiry.”
The organisation appealed to the Forest department to work with youth as partners in conservation awareness rather than criminalising expressions of affection for wildlife.
Recalling its past collaboration with the department in erecting signboards bearing the message “Shoot with a Camera and Not with a Gun,” the CCYO said the reported incident had placed it in a difficult position.
“Today, the arrest of Vezhoto Hesuh gives the impression that we were fooling the public,” it stated, questioning how it could continue advising people to support wildlife conservation if expressions of love for animals were treated as offences.
The CCYO further criticised what it described as contradictory approaches to conservation, arguing that such actions undermine efforts to change public attitudes towards wildlife protection.
The CCYO also supported the Porbami Youth Organisation’s demand for the immediate return of a Great Barbet allegedly taken from Porba village by the Forest department on September 14.
The organisation said the issue extended beyond the bird itself and involved Naga identity and customary practices.
Citing the Porbami Youth Organisation, it stated that rearing the Great Barbet was a longstanding Naga tradition practised before the enactment of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and the establishment of modern zoos.
The organisation questioned the consistency of conservation policies that restrict traditional bird-rearing while permitting animals to be kept in captivity in zoos.
“If our culture is to be questioned, let there be moral courage—first close all zoos and restore the animals to their original habitats,” it stated, arguing that conservation principles should be applied consistently.
Seeks review of Article 371(A) implications
The CCYO urged the Government of Nagaland to examine whether the application or enforcement of Forest and wildlife laws in the Centre Chakhesang area could override or disregard customary practices and rights protected under Article 371(A) of the Constitution.
It stated that Naga customary practices and constitutionally protected rights concerning the ownership and transfer of land and its resources should not be treated as subordinate to administrative interpretations or departmental actions without due consideration of Article 371(A).
The organisation warned that if Forest and wildlife laws were implemented in a manner that infringed upon such rights, it might be compelled to strongly assert and defend constitutional and customary protections, including by considering a declaration that the applicability and enforceability of Forest laws in the Centre Chakhesang area were null and void.