Nagaland Gaonburah Federation criticised Achumbemo Kikon over remarks on gaonburahs, defending their role and seeking clarity on the Naga peace process.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Nagaland Gaonburah Federation (NGBF) has lashed out at MLA and NPF Secretary General Achumbemo Kikon for “immature and thoughtless” remarks made on the floor of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly on March 26.
In a statement issued on Thursday, the federation defended the historical and societal role of gaonburahs (GBs) and questioned the legislator’s understanding of Naga institutions and the ongoing political process.
The NGBF stated that it was “deeply pained” by the comments, adding that in an “Opposition-less House,” there was no immediate correction to the “irresponsible and incorrect statements,” compelling the federation to respond as custodians of traditional authority in Naga society.
It underscored that gaonburahs are not mere appointees of the Home department, as allegedly suggested by Achumbemo, but are rooted in the traditional governance systems of Naga villages.
It traced the formalisation of the institution to the British colonial era, when village elders and respected leaders were incorporated into administrative structures to bridge tribal societies with modern governance.
“The institution was never just about tax collection but functioned as the government’s arm at the village level,” the NGBF stated, adding that the government of India retained and recognised its importance after Independence.
Despite this, it added, GBs are not salaried government employees but continue to serve as grassroots representatives under challenging conditions.
Also read: Nagaland: FIR filed over viral video threatening Zeliang community
Taking strong exception to what it called a “flippant and misleading” portrayal, the federation accused Achumbemo of displaying a “lack of knowledge” and a “demeaning attitude” towards an institution that has played a crucial role in sustaining Naga society through turbulent periods.
Highlighting the sacrifices of GBs, the NGBF recalled their role during the peak of Naga political movement, when violence was widespread and village authorities often found themselves caught between underground groups, security forces and the government.
“They acted as a bridge among all sides, often risking their lives,” the statement read, asserting that GBs are among the most qualified voices to speak on peace and an honourable political settlement.
The federation further remarked that belittling GBs amounts to undermining the contributions of generations of Naga elders, including those from the families of present-day leaders.
It also reiterated its longstanding involvement, along with the Nagaland Tribes Council (NTC), in facilitating dialogue and mediation among Naga groups and the government of India.
Also, the NGBF raised serious concerns over Achumbemo’s alleged remarks on statehood and advocacy for causes “beyond the state line,” terming such views “unbecoming” and a “breach of trust.”
It went as far as suggesting that if the legislator opposes the concept of statehood, he should consider resigning from the Assembly and joining the Naga national movement.
The federation also called on the MLA to engage constructively with issues raised by civil society groups such as the Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN), rather than resorting to personal remarks.
It sought clarity on his and his party’s position regarding the Naga peace process, including whether they support existing agreements between Naga negotiators and the government of India or favour fresh negotiations.
Further, the NGBF accused the state government of adopting a “double-standard” approach—publicly advocating for a peaceful resolution while simultaneously urging the Centre to reopen talks with a new interlocutor, despite formal negotiations having concluded on October 31, 2019, after nearly three decades.
Reaffirming Nagaland’s status within the Union of India, the federation stressed that public discourse, especially by elected representatives, must respect constitutional responsibilities and the oath of office.
It cautioned against rhetoric that could undermine established processes or institutional integrity.