DIMAPUR — The NSCN (IM) on Wednesday issued a statement reiterating its stance on Naga sovereignty and urging the government of India to honour the Framework Agreement (FA) signed in 2015.
“The process of delaying to conclude the Indo-Naga political talk may do more harm than good to both the negotiating parties”, it said.
Asserting that “Nagalim was and is never a part of the Union of India or Myanmar or any other powers either by consent or conquest”, the NSCN (IM) described the ongoing conflict as a “resistance movement against illegal occupation.”
It went on to say that the “Nagas did not start the violent confrontation that span more than seven decades”, and it was the India and Myanmar who chose “the path of military might.” It also denounced the continued presence of Indian military forces empowered by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act despite a ceasefire in place since 1997.
Criticising attempts to frame the issue as an internal matter of India or Myanmar, the group condemned any solution offered within the framework of those nations’ constitutions as a “sell-out.”
“Nagas are for solution and peace but not in capitulation. Never ever shall we lay down our arms, our freedom and our Nagalim. A deviation from this national line is but a treacherous traitor. Nagas would never seek a solution via constitution of India or Myanmar,” it asserted.
While reaffirming its commitment to dialogue, the NSCN (IM) emphasised that “political negotiation is a means to an end.” It said that the signing of the FA is a significant step towards a resolution and the official recognition of “unique history and sovereignty of Nagalim.”
This recognition, it said, extends to the acceptance of a Naga national flag and constitution as integral components of sovereignty.
“The ongoing Indo-Naga political talk can be concluded but only through respecting and honouring the letter and spirit of FA that has been duly recognised and acknowledged Nagalim national flag and constitution”, it said, cautioning that further delays in concluding the peace talks could be detrimental to both parties involved.