Any political settlement should be based on historical facts — UNTABA

Dimapur, June 13 (EMN): United Naga Tribes Association on Border Areas (UNTABA) has welcomed purported formation of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Territorial Council initiated between the government of India (GOI), Assam and the various rebels groups of Karbi Anglong, but it has reminded that the political settlement would only be fruitful if it is based on historical facts.

In a statement on Sunday, UNTABA asserted that the history of the present Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao areas of Assam where the original settlers are Rengmas, Zeme and Zeliangrong Nagas should not be negated.

“ Therefore, any political settlements that maybe worked out with the immigrants or late settlers can never bring about peace and tranquility in this part of the world,” it read.

“It may be reminded once again that the British Administration penetrated the Naga Hills in the later part of the 1830s and tax collection from the Naga villages began in 1837. When they came to learn that all these areas were inhabited by the Nagas, they declared it as ‘the Rengma Naga Hills’ in their official gazette in 1841. To administer the Naga areas more conveniently, a Sub-divisional Headquarter was established at Asaloo presently under Dima Hasao district in 1853. Then to bring about more Naga tribes directly under its administration, the Naga Hills District was created in 1866, headquartered at Samaguting, the present Chumukedima. To avoid inconveniences and prevent further complications, a separate and distinct boundary line for the Naga Hills District was demarcated and notified in 1875.

The areas under KAATC purely fall within the Naga Hills District including the following Reserve Forests namely; Nambor RF, Daigurung RF, Kaliani RF, Mikir RF, Diphu RF, Rengma RF, Daldali RF, Dhansiri RF, Langting Mupa RF and Lumding RF which were transferred from Naga Hills District to the then Nowgong and Sibsagar districts of Assam,” read the statement.

UNTABA further urged the GOI to acknowledge the history ‘if its intent is to really bring about permanent political settlement with any ethnic community in the North East’.

“Towards this end, the GOI should instead adopt proactive policies so as to review the North East Reorganisation Act of 1971 in its entirety and affect necessary amendments so that any political agreement/arrangement can be made with permanency,” it added.