In a statement, he asserted that the Naga \u201cpolitical movement\u201d was a collective issue and therefore no faction could claim to be the mandatory body.
He said no faction was superior than the other and that Nagas could not be part of any group holding talks with the Centre \u201cwithout unanimity among the Nagas, be it over ground or National political groups\u201d. \u201cNagas cannot be the part of IM\u2019s talk as longer they continue their hidden business with GoI without unanimity among the Nagas, be it over ground or National political groups,\u201d he stated. Naga independence of 14th August 1947, plebiscite of 1951 and uniqueness of Naga political history and situation were not NSCN (I-M)\u2019s \u201cprivate properties\u201d as it was the political history of the Nagas which protects their political rights \u201cfrom occupational forces\u201d, Wangtin said.
Also criticizing a statement made by Naga Hoho president Keviletuo Kiewhuo on SS Khapalang\u2019s identity that appeared in local dailies October 27, he questioned Keviletuo as to when Khaplang refused inclusion in the ongoing dialogue, and from whom he (Keviletuo) learnt that Khaplang was a Myanmar citizen. \u201cNaga Hoho and its officials should not be the confused people,\u201d Wangtin said. He alleged that Nagas of present Nagaland state, particularly advance tribes, betrayed Khaplang and \u201chis people\u201d by accepting \u201cIndian State\u201d through \u201cbetrayal\u201d 16-point agreement 1963.
He termed the16-point agreement as a \u201cgreat blunder\u201d subjected to be political analysis, and said Nagas could have achieved sovereignty by now if Nagas (advance tribe) had not signed the agreement.
While leaders of Nagas of Nagaland forgot their solemn pledge that \u201cneither Nagas of Indian site nor the Nagas of Myanmar occupation should accept imposed states from both the occupational countries,\u201d Khaplang and his people still firmly stood on the pledge, Wangtin added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"