Dimapur, August 6 (EMN): The government of India has once again stated that it has been working towards arriving at a solution to the protracted Indo-Naga peace, even as it chose to play safe by not sharing the details of the framework agreement signed between New Delhi and NSCN (IM) on August 3, 2015.
In a written statement submitted to the Rajya Sabha recently, the union minister of state for Home Affairs, Kiren Rijiju said a detailed agreement was being worked out. He was responding to questions raised by Ripun Bora, a Congress MP from Assam.
Rijiju however refused to share details of the framework agreement on the contention that doing so at this stage might be “prejudicial to the final settlement”. He stated: “The matter is extremely sensitive.”
He also asserted that “prior consultation” with other north-eastern states on the framework agreement to bring about lasting peace in Nagaland “was not required as it was a framework agreement and did not affect them”. This was stated in a report carried by The Sentinel, in Assam, on Sunday.
Rijiju admitted that the NSCN (IM) has demanded a greater Nagalim by including some areas of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, according to the report.
“Prior consultation, with the state governments, on the framework agreement between the government of India and NSCN (IM) was not required as it was a framework agreement which did not affect them.
Integration of Naga areas is one of the issues raised by the NSCN (IM),” the minister stated.
Bora, a former Assam minister who now also heads Assam Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC), raised five questions to know about different aspects of the framework agreement.
According to Bora, the centre has kept other north-eastern states, including Assam, in the dark about the agreement, particularly on the issue of integration of Naga-inhabited areas, one of the principal demands of the NSCN (IM).
And even as the neighbouring states of Nagaland are awaiting clarity on the framework agreement, the opposition Congress in Assam has asserted that any move that affects the interests of the state would be opposed “tooth and nail”.
