Working Committee (WC) of the seven-member Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) has issued a press statement expounding on “Who is an anti Naga” in response to the NSCN (I-M). WC maintained that Naga political issue is not six decades-old but over a century beginning with the British expedition to unconquered Naga hills in 1932 under Captain Jenkins and Lieutenant Pemberton . It said the British force first encountered the Angami Nagas and Kuccha Nagas
WC said Angamis offered stiff resistance against the British till they were subdued by superior forces and weaponry. WC said the genesis of military conflict between the British expeditionary forces and Nagas is clearly and meticulously documented by historian.
Further, WC reminded about involvement of Naga Labour Corps during WWI, formation of Naga Club in 1918 and historic memorandum submitted to the Simon Commission in 1929 and Naga contribution to allied forces during WWII, declaration of Naga Independence on August 14,1947 and Naga Plebiscite on May 16,1951. Drawing attention on the Framework Agreement (FA) signed between NSCN (I-M) and government of India on August 3,2015 and in contrast to the above chronology of Naga political history, WC said the opening lines of the FA read“ the political conflict is about six decades old.”
WC asked about whose political conflict was the FA signed and which leader or group had the “audacity to sign on a document that states, political conflict started around 1955-56?”.
On “Nagalim” instead of “Nagaland” in the FA, the WC said it was compelled to state its point. It said NSCN (I-M) had discarded “Nagaland” and coined “Nagalim” in its political lexicon to propagate a different narrative. However, on the eve of signing of FA, the name “Nagaland” and not “Nagalim” was mentioned, it said.
Drawing attention to NSCN (I-M) statement on August 18, through Hutovi Chishi, Convenor Steering Committee, WC said it was a clear threat against the rest of Naga revolutionary groups, all tribes, sub-tribes in Nagaland and affiliated organisations, NGBF and village chiefs.
Instead, WC said it was the NSCN (I-M) which fell in line with R.N. Ravi when it signed the Framework Agreement on August 3,2015 “without consulting the Naga tribes.” Therefore, WC said Naga tribes have “every reason to label NSCN (I-M) as anti-Naga for mishandling the Nagas for twenty three years.”
WC alleged that as part of its “socialist pattern” under the name of Christ, NSCN (I-M) seeks to enforce government ownership, nationalising ancestral tribal lands and resources. In this, WC the NSCN (I-M)’s request to the government of India to make present Intangki National Park and surrounding areas of camp Hebron as “their resettlement and rehabilitation areas as part of the Indo-Naga political solution.”
WC reiterated that Intangki National Park is the common property of Naga people and that neither the Indian parliament nor constitution “can infringe on the land of Nagas, particularly in Nagaland.”