Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland questions the new Union MoS-led Naga peace-talk mechanism and seeks clarity on existing agreements from the Centre
DIMAPUR — The Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN) has questioned the status and mandate of the Union minister of state-led mechanism announced by the state government for Naga political talks, seeking clarity from the Centre on whether it replaces the existing peace agreements.
In a statement issued on Monday, the forum also questioned Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio’s August 15 announcement that the government of India had constituted a committee headed by a minister of state for Home Affairs to lead the Naga peace talks.
The CNFN asked whether the Centre had authorised the chief minister to make the announcement and, if so, sought details of the new arrangement. It also questioned the Centre’s silence on the announcement, saying neither confirmation nor denial had been issued.
The forum contended that the recent resolution of the state government’s political affairs committee (PAC), which sought the appointment of a Union minister of state as interlocutor, could undermine the agreements reached between the Centre and Naga political groups.
It pointed to the Framework Agreement signed between the Centre and NSCN (IM) in 2015 and the Agreed Position signed with the Working Committee of NNPGs in 2017, arguing that years of negotiations had already produced the two agreements.
Also read: Collapsed bridge wall, poor workmanship flagged on Nagaland Foothills Road
Satisfied with Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority Bill, says Chingmak Chang
According to CNFN, the appointment of a new political interlocutor or mechanism could imply that the previous agreements were being set aside and fresh negotiations contemplated.
The forum also criticised the state government and NSCN (IM), alleging that their positions on the new arrangement had weakened the Naga political process. It specifically referred to statements by NSCN (IM) Deputy Ato Kilonser VS Atem endorsing the PAC resolution and chief minister’s announcement.
The CNFN claimed that Atem’s position was at odds with NSCN (IM) Chairman Q Tuccu’s reiteration of support for the Framework Agreement in his Naga Independence Day speech. The forum called on NSCN (IM) to clarify whether it continued to stand by the agreement.
The forum maintained that the Agreed Position signatories continued to seek an early settlement based on what had already been agreed.
It further questioned the role of the PAC in the peace process, arguing that the body was a facilitator and could not replace the Naga political negotiators.
The CNFN also cited the Nagaland Legislative Assembly’s endorsement of the Framework Agreement and Agreed Position during its January 2020 session, arguing that any move to alter that position should be brought before the Assembly.
The forum maintained the public deserved clarity on the actual status of the new emissary or mechanism reportedly being put in place by the Centre.
JOIN OUR WHATSAPP CHANNEL