Responding to NPF president Dr. Shürhozelie’s acceptance of its challenge for an “open debate”, the NPCC Saturday demanded that he first clarify whether the acceptance was at personal level or at party level. NPCC media cell asked if he accepted the challenge, why had he not come out with a “response in black and white” to questions posed by it (NPCC)? The media cell said its challenge for a “healthy political debate in print media for wide publicity” was being misconstrued as a challenge for an open debate. The NPCC, however, said that whatever may be the interpretation, it would not be frightened by such “literary arrogance”. NPCC said on June 12, it challenged NPF for a healthy political debate at philosophical and ideological levels, to give new dimension and impetus to the Naga political issue. NPCC said on June 13, it had called on the NPF stalwarts and ideologue and not “pseudo-regionalists” to take the stage and debate with the Congress on the political issue. Saying it was fed up with NPF and Imkong L. Imchen’s repeated “off-track statements”, NPCC said it threw the challenge on NPF for a debate if it would help Naga political groups in finding a solution. NPCC said its call for a debate was primarily to focus on the future road-map and its applied theory for solution, based on history and philosophy. It however reminded that the NPF was yet to make public all its achievements on the Naga political issue as was done by the Congress since it was “an obligatory pre-requisite before the open debate”. It also demanded that the NPF also make a public statement over its alleged ambiguous stand on the Shillong Accord. NPCC said NPF has been condemning the Congress for the 16 Point Agreement which the Congress stoutly defended as the best possible arrangement that could salvage the Nagas “at that point of time” from “total annihilation”. NPCC said the issue needed to be brought to a logical conclusion since the Naga political issue “is not the monopoly of the regional party.” It also castigated Dr Shürhozelie, the minister for urban development & higher education, for various alleged failures- holding elections to urban local bodies; development projects to be taken up in Kohima town and “total chaos” in the higher educations including the Nagaland university. Is pointed that when Dr Shürhozelie failed to tackle these state subjects directly under his control (except NU), “what moral right and authority does he have to debate on other topics?” NPCC asked Dr. Shürhozelie, as the proponent of an open debate on other topics, to take the liberty and responsibility of choosing the date, venue and monitoring body as proposed by him. “The NPCC will be available on the D-day by prior notice,” media cell said. NPCC alleged that Dr Shürhozelie was trying to play the role of “level-playing” between the Congress and NPF the NPCC as he probably did not approve of the approach some of his own party men had adopted. It said that instead of disciplining his own partymen, Dr Shürhozelie had termed the NPCC’s statements on its hard-earned political achievements as “childish,” which it rejected outright as “unqualified rhetoric.”
For More Updates, follow us on 
and 