EMN
Dimapur, May 17
NSCN (Reformation) has categorically stated that Khaplang never wanted the Nagas from Indian side to raise voice and question his dictatorial authority and integrity.
“First, he developed differences with Isak and Muivah, later with Khole and Kitovi, and now with Wangtin Naga and P.Tikhak.”
MIP Secretary, NSCN-R in a statement referring to Prof. Sanjib Baruah’s article ‘The Nagas of India and Myanmar’ which was published in a section of media said, on political dialogue with India, Khaplang wanted to wait till talks with NSCN-IM fails, and rubbished Khaplang’s claim that the group had unilaterally abrogated ceasefire as it was not sustainable without talks, terming it as ‘utter falsehood.”
NSCN-R leader Wangtin said, “When Naga movement has failed to attract the attention of Indian authorities (including British India) and Indian media for almost a century, it is really noteworthy for the professor far away from the Indian soil to have paid so much attention to a very recent development affecting the Nagas in this part of the world. It amply shows that even if the development is a footnote as of now in the long history of Naga movement, it has far reaching implications for the future. But what is more impressive is Baruah’s knowledge of Naga issue although he is a non Naga.”
“Studying an issue and living an issue are two entirely different experiences. If the professor is a keen observer of Naga issue, there are many Nagas like me who have firsthand experience of the issue, particularly the recent developments which have been highlighted by the author in his article. I, therefore, deem it my duty to present my perspective of the issue in question for the benefit of the vast majority of Nagas on Indian side. Otherwise, history will never forgive me for my omission of not pointing out the facts to counter the fiction. I am sure the professor will respect my opinion on the issue as much as I respect his.”
For the benefit of readers, Wangtin divided Baruah’s article as (i) India’s policy towards Khaplang vis a vis Myanmar’s, (ii) Indian Nagas vs Myanmar Nagas, (iii) Khaplang’s importance in contemporary Naga politics, and (iv) some other miscellaneous issues.
He recalled that the first ceasefire meeting of NSCN-K with Myanmar authorities, which the author has referred to in his article to glorify Khaplang and criticise Indian Govt’s policy towards him, was held at Hkamti on April 9 2012.
He said, the meeting which was held at the regional level led by the Chief Minister of Sagaing Division, U Tha Aye, was a red letter day for NSCN-K. “NSCN-K leaders were welcomed by Nagas of Hkamti led by MPs, MLAs, Naga Yuya, Eastern Naga Students Union, Eastern Naga Women Association, Naga Baptist Convention, local leaders and public from various communities including Shans, Kachins, etc in a glittering ceremony. The Myanmar Govt organised a fantastic cultural evening to showcase their rich culture followed by gala dinner for the NSCN-K delegates. I must reveal with all humility that the ceasefire agreement was drafted and signed by none other than Kilonser Wangtin Naga and kilonser P.Tikhak, the leaders of “yet-to-be-named group of former NSCN-K members” as referred to by Mr Baruah. For your kind information professor, our group has been aptly named as NSCN-Reformation.”
“Notwithstanding the lavish hospitality extended by Myanmar authorities, the initial political concessions made by them did not reflect their mature political acumen as touted by the author. To clarify it, Mr Baruah, Myanmar authorities wanted to restrict the Naga areas only to four towns i.e. Leyshi, Lahey, Namjung and Pangsau. But we demanded and managed to get the main ceasefire office at Hkamti and asked for sub-offices in all towns.”
“We also demanded a liaison office at Myitkyina, the capital of Kachin land. Ceasefire office at Hkamti was demanded in order to ensure that at least Hkamti town remained with Naga areas, as most of the Naga areas like Mawlait, Kalaywqa, Tamanthi, Homalin, Tamu, Simpoyang and Tenai had already fallen into the hands of Shans and Kachins. Nagas are minority in these towns some as less as 2%. Therefore, we did not want to lose Hkamti and stuck to our demand for main ceasefire office at Hkamti. We have also asked the Union of Myanmar to immediately demarcate the Naga areas so that all the Naga areas which have gone to the Kachins and Shans can be brought back to the Nagas. Unfortunately, Khaplang had done little or nothing to prevent the Naga areas from going into the hands of other communities, so much for his ‘ideological worldview’ and ‘ideological commitments’, as eulogized by the author. With his current posture, I fear that whatever little effort was made in this direction will now vanish in thin air.” The two Naga leaders from Indian side, Wangtin Naga and P.Tikhak, who have been expelled by none other than Khaplang himself and compelled to form a new group committed to their ideology of peace and non-violence, fought with Myanmar authorities for these rights of Myanmar brethren. The architects of the recognition of Khaplang’s authority in parts of Sagaing Division, which has been cited by the author as a sound political sense of Myanmar Govt, were these two leaders, the statement said.
“Was it not a reflection of the two leaders of their commitment to pan-Naga political and social identity, as referred to by Mr Sanjib Baruah ? For us, concerns of our brothers and sisters in Myanmar were as dear to our heart as concerns of our brothers and sisters in India. After all, we Nagas learnt to fight unitedly for our independence and sovereignty from our ancestors. So much so, when both Khole and Kitovi parted ways with Khaplang, the two leaders stood by him. The two leader did not consider Khaplang a “Burmese Naga” then. Probably, Khaplang is suffering from amnesia !!!!”
“Who then broke this bond ? Who divided the Nagas between Myanmar Nagas and Indian Nagas ? Who built the Indo-Myanmar wall? Who gave the identity of “Indian Nagas” to us? Who betrayed the Naga cause? The answer to all these questions is only one – KHAPLANG. I can assure you, we never had such intentions to segregate us from our Myanmar brothers who are linked by common ancestry. Khaplang exploited both the leaders who knew English language and are intellectually superior to any of his current “advisors” to ink the historic agreement with Myanmar, only to enjoy its fruits with his Myanmar brothers.”
When it came to similar ceasefire with GoI, the statement said, Khaplang opposed tooth and nail.
“When it came to have political dialogue with India, he wanted to wait till talks with NSCN-IM to fail. To claim that Khaplang unilaterally abrogated ceasefire since it was not sustainable without talks is utter falsehood. Simply put, he did not have any stake in political settlement with GoI. This was ‘political opportunism’ at its worst, whether Mr Baruah agrees or not. His only interest in India was to amass wealth by exploiting us. His only love for us was to make us the sacrificial goats before Indian security forces so that he can live longer.”
Wangtin said, Khaplang never wanted the Nagas from Indian side to raise their voice and question his dictatorial authority and integrity.
“First, he developed differences with Isak and Muivah, later with Khole and Kitovi, and now with Wangtin Naga and P.Tikhak. So, Mr Baruah, you may ask Khaplang, is the blood flowing in us not Naga blood ? Are we not stock of the same Naga family ? Do we not have the right to live with respect and dignity in a place where we were born ? Khaplang may easily forget this side of the border where he spent only his early childhood (Margherita as claimed by the author), but we are born to live and die here. Khaplang is answerable to the Nagas of the world as to why has he created Nagas within Nagas, not we. However, we on the Indian side will continue to maintain our good- neighbourly relations with Naga public of Myanmar and help them in whatever way we can despite Khaplang’s betrayal.”
“Khaplang is a fatherly figure (Baba) in Naga society and Nagas respect their elders. But one should deserve and inspire that respect through his actions and not demand by putting one in fear. But for some of his followers, the vast majority of Indian Nagas do not have any respect for Khaplang. They are only worried about his blood thirsty and trigger happy followers, who have already shown their true colours.”
On Wangtin’s statement, ‘to my great baba as no son has any bad intention towards his father’, the statement clarified that he was not mentioning about post-split period, but was referring to the period prior to the split when he tried his best to convince Khaplang to take into consideration several other domestic problems being faced by national workers on Indian side.
“But Khaplang turned deaf ears to all his pleas thinking that Wangtin must be doing so only to benefit himself which is why he wanted to clarify his position to Khaplang that a son can never have any bad intentions against his father. Whatever he has pleaded before him was only to save the organisation from sinking by vicious machinations of the back biters, which ultimately culminated in the current state of affairs. Therefore, it was not at all an apologetic statement as made out to be by the author.”
On the influence of Khaplang on Indian side, the statement said, few incidents of blood bath by fugitive followers do not prove one’s influence, rising public resentment against violence and call for non-cooperation do speak against it. “Sooner than later, truth will prevail, and future will speak eloquently about Khaplang’s influence on Indian side, whether in Arunachal Pradesh or Nagaland. Don’t forget, there is a pantheon of Naga leaders who have sacrificed themselves at the altar of Naga cause for Naga society to emulate. Khaplang does not even merit a mention.”
“Khaplang’s protection to other Indian Insurgent groups in Myanmar is not out of his influence and authority, it is purely a marriage of convenience arising out of mutual self interests. While the other groups take advantage of his ceasefire with Myanmar to take refuge in the area, Khaplang takes ‘protection money’ in lieu of providing his infrastructure. They are all dancing to the tune of their ‘mentors’ who are trying to fish in the troubled waters by providing them logistics and moral support. Khaplang’s efforts to form umbrella organizations with other insurgent groups from time to time speak about his selfish political ambitions and pecuniary considerations, and not about any ‘ideological worldview’ or ‘ideological commitments’. When he could not serve his blood relations, where is the question of serving the cause of the so called ‘cross-border resistance movement’ cutting across ethnic agendas. “
On the other issues such as whether India should learn from Myanmar on how to deal with Khaplang, whether India’s security forces have the capacity to contain NSCN-K, whether Myanmar will extend a helping hand to India by not allowing Khaplang to use its soil, and whether India can solve the Naga issue only by talking to NSCN-IM, the statement said, it is for Indian government to ponder.
“In any case, nothing can be farther from truth than equating NSCN-K with Myanmar in the context of India’s engagement.”
