VS Atem outlines NSCN (IM)’s position on Naga talks, third-country negotiations, ministerial interlocutor and differences over Framework Agreement.
-1786718142666.webp&w=1200&q=75)
DIMAPUR — NSCN (IM) Deputy Ato Kilonser Lt. Gen. (Retd.) VS Atem on Friday said the group had no control over its adversaries, amid a reported armed clash in Manipur’s Kangpokpi district that left two Nagas dead.
Interacting with media persons after the Naga Independence Day celebration at Hebron, Atem was asked about a statement issued by the Myanmar-based Eastern Flank of NSCN (IM) against the NSCN (IM) Hebron. He said anyone could issue such a statement and expressed hope that they would “live out according to their statement”.
On concerns that divisions among Naga political groups could send a wrong message to the government of India, Atem acknowledged that it would be “definitely a wrong message”, but alleged that the adversary had been behind the developments.
Asked about Nagaland government’s request for a ministerial-level interlocutor for Indo-Naga parleys, Atem said that the demand for a ministerial-level representative had come from the NSCN (IM), while Nagaland government was only facilitating the process to give a push to the talks.
On the issue of holding negotiations in a third country, Atem said the NSCN (IM) had consistently insisted on talks being held outside the country if government of India was sincere about adhering to the principles agreed upon.
He alleged that the Centre had not kept its assurances and principles despite repeatedly stating that it wanted an early settlement.
Also read: NSCN (IM) leader Th. Muivah says Naga flag, constitution will not be compromised
On the provision for Prime Minister-level talks, Atem said the Centre had told NSCN (IM) that the prime minister could not attend every round of negotiations due to his responsibilities.
He added that the NSCN (IM), appreciating the prime minister’s difficulties, had agreed to accept his representative as interlocutor, as had happened in the past. However, he maintained that the Naga issue was political and therefore a political person should lead the government of India’s side.
Asked why the Framework Agreement had not been made public, Atem said the agreement was only one page and had been published several times. However, he said that the competencies related to the agreement had not been made public because they had not yet been discussed and finalised.
According to Atem, the competencies were currently proposals from both sides and could not ordinarily be made public while two entities were still negotiating.
On the difference between the Agreed Position and Framework Agreement, Atem said the Agreed Position had already been incorporated into the Indian Constitution and maintained that there was “no meeting point” between the two agreements.
On oil exploration in Nagaland, Atem suggested visiting Changpang in Wokha district and asking villagers whether oil was still flowing from the fields or whether the wells had dried up.
He also referred to the Borholla oilfield, alleging that while it had been inaugurated by the chief minister, the state had failed to pay sufficient attention, allowing Assam to take over the field and extract its oil.