Share
DIMAPUR — The Naga Hoho has unequivocally denounced the statements made by advisor, Information and Public Relations and Soil and Water Conservation, Imkong L Imchen on the abolishment of the free movement regime (FMR) along the Indo-Naga Border, terming it as a “stab in the back.”
The hoho, in a press statement, informed that Imchen’s statement was “thoroughly discussed” during the hoho’s second federal assembly on January 23, wherein the house termed his endorsement of abolishing FMR as a betrayal of decades of struggle and sacrifice.
“Decades of sweat, blood, and sacrifices, with generations lost in the fight to safeguard our ancestral domain, are now callously trampled under the dirty feet of the very person who should champion our cause,” it stated.
“The past, with its profound meaning and poignant sacrifices by our ancestors, seems to hold no sway over the MLA and those who endorse such a despicable betrayal. In an unequivocal denouncement, the Naga Hoho aligns with other organisations in condemning the treacherous actions of Hon’ble MLA Eno Imkong L Imchen,” it maintained.
The hoho accused Imchen of collaborating with the Union Home Minister to support a smart fence along the Indo-Myanmar boundary and endorse the ban on the FMR, describing it as “a grievous betrayal to the Naga people and a sinister assault on our intrinsic right to self-determination.”
Imchen’s remarks, it said, “Is against the very principle of Naga Integration of which he is one of the MLAs who voted for Naga integration while passing the resolution in Nagaland Legislative Assembly.”
The Naga Hoho highlighted Imchen’s political history of ‘flip-flopping’ and ‘opportunism,’ leaving the Naga populace disillusioned. It urged the legislator to propose viable solutions without drawing inspiration from the arbitrary demarcation of the international boundary through the chief's house at Longwa village in Mon, by India and Burma.
Asserting its commitment to Naga self-determination and sovereignty, the hoho accused the legislator of colluding against the Naga people’s sovereign rights and stated that history would remember him as a “turncoat’ for his ‘betrayal of our collective vision for momentary political gains.”