Monday, May 23, 2022
image
Views & Reviews

A summary of the political revelations since the signing of the Framework Agreement

1
By EMN Updated: Feb 24, 2016 10:53 pm
A A A

Kaka D. Iralu

Ever since the signing of an Accord (Framework Agreement) between the NSCN IM and the GOI on Aug.3, 2015, there have been a lot of statements and write ups from various quarters. Some of them were official statements from the NNC and FGN; others were from the NSCN IM, while others were from individuals in the name of NNC.
But in spite of all these statements, some Nagas still seems to not have understood anything from these official as well as individual statements. Allow me therefore to briefly summarize the important statements in my own words in the simplest form. I will however in some portions quote as well as point the reader to the various statements so that the reader can personally verify the statements as they were released in the local dailies.1. ON SOVEREIGNTY AND SHARED SOVEREIGNTY
The sudden announcement of the framework agreement of shared sovereignty and the possible early declaration of a solution were met by quick responses from the NNC and FGN authorities. Both the NNC President M.S. Adinno as well as the FGN President, General Viyalie Metha clarified through Press releases that the Naga nation’s stand was for complete Independence and not for an autonomous state within the Indian union or a shared Sovereignty with India. The NNC and FGN clearly stated that for the past 69 years they had been defending their declared sovereignty and not asking for a shared sovereignty with India. They emphatically stated that the declaration of a nation’s independence was the exclusive prerogative right of any nation and that such a declaration did not require the permission of another neighbor nation or even the U.N.O. Re-affirming that the NNC and the FGN are the only mandated Political institution and executive Government of the Naga people; they had declared that “They will not be a party to any factions or organizations supported by any civil society that will commit Naga citizenship to any other country besides Sovereign Independent Nagaland.”
(For details, see “The Naga National Council and its stand” by M.S Adinno Phizo dated Aug 4, 2015; Federal Government of Nagaland, Press Release dated August 4, 2015; Sixty eight Independence Day speech of General Viyalie Metha dated Aug.14, 2015; Official Statement of the Federal Government of Nagaland, dated Dec 5, 2015. Most of these statements appeared in the local dailies the day after they were officially released.)
2. ON THE SHILLONG ACCORD AND ITS AFTERMATH
The “Statement of the Joint Council NSCN” (IM) appeared in the Nagaland Post on Dec 28, 2015, wherein they had accused the NNC of having “failed to uphold the national trust by signing the infamous Shillong Accord of 1975” and that they (NSCN IM) are now therefore “the authentic political organization of the Naga people” and “the embodiment of the Naga national struggle…”. Further, on Feb.1, 2016 Rh. Raising’s 37th NSCN Raising Day speech appeared in the local papers. In his speech Raising had declared that “the future of the Nagas were placed in a very dangerous situation of subjugation and annexation by the Indian State” because of the Shillong Accord. He further went on to say that “The history of the Nagas would have been sealed in the coffin of the infamous accord had there not been committed revolutionary patriots in the forefront under the dynamic leaderships of Isak and Muivah.” He went on to state that the “accord sharply divided NNC into two camps: those who upheld the accord and those who were against it.” He further stated that these pro-Shillong Accord group “seized power in a military coup” and “Isak Chishi Swu and Th.Muivah along with their cabinet members were arrested on fabricated grounds and detained in military custody to be executed.”He ended by saying that Isak and Muivah were finally released in the first week of January 1980. (See Nagaland Post Feb. 1, 2016 for details)
But these false statements and fabrications of Naga history- especially of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s were immediately corrected by eye witnesses who were with Isak and Muivah in Eastern Nagaland at that time. Mr. Shopwan who is presently a Joint Secretary of the NNC for example, responded to Raising’s statement in the following manner: While acknowledging that Isak and Muivah were indeed kept under house arrest after the Martial law was declared, he pointed out that Lt. Col Subong was compelled to declare martial law because Muivah had taken over dictatorial powers by what amounts to a re-writing of even the Yehzabo of Nagaland. Muivah appointed himself as the General Secretary of both the NNC as well as the FGN. He started to dictate on even the NNC by centralizing all political powers and even giving the NNC President his portfolio of becoming President of both the NNC and the FGN. A resolution was even passed to the effect that “the NNC President A.Z. Phizo should be called back home by 1980. But if he fails to comply, he will be removed from the leadership.” He had further disqualified all national workers in Nagaland from service because of the Shillong Accord. He had undertaken all these unbelievable actions in order to topple Phizo, nullify the NNC and take over power through a communist socialist form of Government.
Shopwan also showed very clearly how Isak and Muivah were released not in the first week of January 1980 but in May 1979 and that they were the ones who killed T. Venuh Vice President of the NNC, Lorho Mao the speaker of the Tatar Hoho and 13 other top NNC/FGN leaders between Nov.27, 1979 to January 3, 1980. As proof of these facts, he recounted how Isak hosted the Tulini feast at Nuklaw on 12th June 1979 as thanksgiving for his release and also hosted the Naga Independence Day celebration on 14th August 1979 at Pongshom village which were both in Eastern Nagaland. In an earlier article dated Oct.12, 2015 under the caption “SHIFTING THE BLAME TO KHAPLANG BY THE NSCN IM OVER THE KILLINGS IN EASTERN NAGALAND IN 1979/1980”, he had even produced a copy of the report by Brig. Thungbo who had carried out the assassinations of all these top NNC and FGN leaders. The report as it appeared in the papers was submitted to Isak, Muivah and Khaplang dated 11th March 1980.
The false assertions of the NSCN IM were also fittingly repudiated by the retired General Thinoselie who pointed out in his statement that since the four top leaders of the NNC, namely A.Z. Phizo, (President),Muivah, (General Secretary), Imkongmeren, (Vice President) and Isak Chishi swu(Chairman, Executive Council) were nowhere around the signing of the Shillong Accord, the NNC cannot be accused of having capitulated to India and betrayed the Naga nation through the Shillong Accord. He added that all these top leaders of the NNC were –one, in London, one in an Indian Prison and the other two in China when the Shillong Accord was signed on Nov.11, 1975. He also pointed out that on careful examination, “the Shillong Accord had no legal binding on the NNC and FGN because they had not signed it.” (The Shillong Accord was signed as “Underground Representatives) He ended up by saying “Please do not mislead and deceive yourselves and our people anymore.” (See “Rejoinder to The position of the NSCN by Retd. General Thinoselie, Morung Express dated Jan.19, 2016)
Mr. Longsha Konyak who is presently a member of the Central Executive Council of the NNC further added the following statements: “ These condemnation and rejections of the Shillong Accord was not at all an NSCN IM record because NSCN or NSCN IM did not exist at that time (1975/76). The NSCN was formed only on Jan 31, 1980 and NSCN IM in May 1988. Therefore, neither the NSCN nor the NSCN IM were anywhere in the picture when the Shillong Accord was condemned in the 1970’s. The NNC did not fail to uphold the trust of the people. It is they -Muivah and Isak who have failed to uphold the trust of the people. They threw away the trust and mandate of the people when they defected from the NNC and formed another political organization without the mandate of the Naga nation.”
As for the Home government of the FGN at the time of the signing of the Shillong Accord, Longsha pointed out the following facts: “On the part of the FGN who were still holding the home government at that time in Nagaland, they issued a statement on 30th December 1975 where President Zashei on behalf of the FGN had clearly stated that because of Article 139 and 140 of the Naga Yehzabo, his government cannot accept clause 1 and 3 of the Shillong Accord. (Articles 139 and 140 of the Naga Yehzabo clearly state that only the Central Executive Council of the NNC can decide on the fate of the nation). This meant that clause 1&3 of the Shillong Accord cannot be used as a basis for any settlement between the GOI and FGN.
As for those who call themselves “None- Accordist,” Longsha went on to state: “Condemnation of the Shillong Accord is also not the record of those who are calling themselves as “Non-Accordists” today. This is because all these so called “Non Accordist” were also with the NNC and FGN when the accord was condemned. It was only after they were driven out from the Peace camps (by the Indian Government) for having taken rehabilitation money that they started calling those who were in the Peace camps as “Accordist” and themselves as “Non-Accordist.” In fact, those who were driven away from the Peace camps by the Indian Government are the Accordist because they had already accepted rehabilitation from the Indian Government.” (See “Who has caused Divisions and Killings among Nagas? By Longsha Konyak-Morung Express, Feb.2, 2016.)

1
By EMN Updated: Feb 24, 2016 10:53:09 pm