New interlocutor demand a ‘ploy’ to delay solution, says WC-NNPG

DIMAPUR — The Working Committee of the Naga National Political Groups (WC-NNPG) has accused the government of Nagaland of deliberately delaying the implementation of the Indo-Naga peace agreement.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the WC-NNPG claimed that during the September 12 consultative meeting convened by the state government, open discussions were held with “almost every participants emphasising on the urgency of early solution.”

However, a “contradictory” resolution was adopted, “purely malafide in all its intent and purpose and only to promote anti-solution narrative.”

The WC-NNPG emphasised that the Indo-Naga political dialogue officially concluded on Oct. 31, 2019. Even before this conclusion, on July 19, 2018, then-Interlocutor RN Ravi briefed the Parliamentary Standing Committee (Rajya Sabha), during which he reportedly stated that, “In 2015, the government reached an understanding with the NSCN (IM), which agreed [to] a settlement within [the] Indian federation, with a special status.”

According to the WC-NNPG, Ravi informed the committee that this agreement marked a departure from the NSCN (IM)’s earlier position of ‘with India, not within’ and the government termed this agreement the ‘Framework Agreement’ and officially signed it.

Therefore, “there is no ambiguity and the official document agreed by both the parties in itself, clearly testifies the nature and trajectory of the process as well as its conclusion.”

Further solidifying the conclusion of the dialogue, on Jan. 17, 2020, during the fifth session of the 13th NLA, Ravi, who was also then-Governor of Nagaland, briefed the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, on the culmination of the entire process and declared the political talks officially concluded.

Given this “common knowledge” about the conclusion of dialogue, the WC-NNPG asserted that the state government’s demand for a new interlocutor is a “ploy” to “subvert and delay political solution” and “drag the Indo-Naga political process back to square one”.

Moreover, “while the final inking was on the verge, the Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio along with NSCN (IM) vociferously demanded the removal of RN Ravi as interlocutor and thus the entire process was brought to a grinding halt”, it said.

“The delay in implementation of the agreement(s) in its entirety is attributed to the hostile move of the incumbent state government led by the Chief Minister Rio,” the statement read.

The WC-NNPG went on to state that since the dialogue phase was finished, a new interlocutor was unnecessary. “It must also be understood that the former Interlocutor was fully empowered by the PMO with the cabinet status, however, with the completion of interlocution phase AK Mishra has now been tasked by the GoI as its representative to fast track solution and therefore, the need for a new interlocutor does not arise at all”, it said.

Furthermore, as a constituent of the government of India, “it is also not the responsibility of the state government to demand for a change of interlocutor,” it said.

The WC-NNPG further questioned if the government fully grasps the meaning of “successfully concluded” and the role of an interlocutor when further dialogue is unnecessary.

“Does the Nagaland state government have other agendas to be tabled and discussed besides the two signed agreements? If so, they need to bring it to the public domain rather than using subterfuge in the form of demanding new Interlocutor,” it said.

Taking aim at the state government’s frequent claims of acting as “facilitators,” the WC-NNPG countered that a “facilitator, asserting to pave way for solution in its true sense, must be to sincerely facilitate solution, without further delay and not to diabolically delay solution with collusion of anti-solution elements.”

Further, every stake holder must ask, “who benefits from the delay in political solution and what course of action must we all pursue together to remove obstruction and clear the path for immediate political solution”, on the basis of mutually signed agreement between the central government and the negotiating parties as endorsed by the people.