KU refutes Akato-led NSCN (R) Dec 21 statement

Konyak Union (KU) has refuted the December 21, 2021 statement issued by Akato-led NSCN (R) alleging that “Wangtin’s private land was on encroached land (named as Naga firm) in Tekang area and CFSB/CFMG’s office cautioning the ancestral Konyak land as DAB (Disturbed Area Belt) with Assam.”
Asserting that it was not “sidelining/favoring any Naga political groups, factions, individuals,” KU said that Akato-led NSCN (R) group and the CFSB/CFMG’s “fictitious statement over the Konyak ancestral land” was uncalled for and should be immediately withdrawn.
“No individual/group has the right to utter any unfounded word on issue pertaining to the ancestral land of the Konyaks that had been divinely ordained and inherited,” KU stated.
Further, the union said that Wangtin’s private land/firm was not located at Tekang as mentioned but located at Tekun area. KU said that Tekang area, as mentioned in the December 21 press statement, was located between Mon-Tizit and also the ancestral ownership over Tekun falls under Wangla village.
It also noted that Wangtin Naga, president of the NSCN (R), himself had acquired the private land at Tekun from its ancestral owner of the land, as “no land/forest exists without its owner.”
KU pointed out that Singlopathar Mokhuti village currently, under Charaideo district of Assam, had been established on the ancestral land of Wangla Konyak village and the ownership was still recognized over Singlopathar Mokhuti village, which was 10kms away from Tekum area. The union said that there was “living proof” supporting the July 24, 2021 agreement between Wangla (Konyak Village) and Singlopathar Mokhuti in Assam.
KU, therefore, said that every Naga political leader/groups should abstain and refrain from making such fictitious statement but instead strive to protect/defend and ancestral land of the Nagas, asserting that the historical/ancestral birth right of the Konyaks cannot be sold at any cost.
It reminded that since the era of the Ahoms, there relationship between the Ahom and the Konyak Nagas were cordial.
However, it alleged the encroachment over Konyak ancestral land had been carried in the forms of developmental expansion by the Assam government ignoring and undermining the ancestral ownership rights of the Konyaks over its land.
Such encroachment by the Assam government or state boundary demarcation over the ancestral land of the Konyak Nagas was nothing but an act to subdue the indigenous tribal rights of the Konyak Naga tribes.
KU therefore out-rightly declared that it does not recognize any state or international boundary that divides or run over its ancestral land.