CPO states firm position on August 23 Declaration

Kohima, September 6 (MExN): The Chakhesang Public Organization (CPO) today stated in a press communiqué that it “is forced to issue this counter statement to August 23, 2018 Declaration, jointly signed by Naga Hoho & UNC at Senapati Village, Manipur followed by NH Open Letter as published in local papers on August 24 and 31 respectively, to set the record clear and restate the un-wavered stand of CPO before the Nagas.”

 

CPO, President, Kekhwengulo Lea and General Secretary, Mutsivoyi Kotso in a statement has clarified its firm position vis-à-vis August 23 Declaration and Naga Hoho stating that “any self-determined Naga political principle and position deviated from originality shall have no binding whatsoever on CPO and its members.” It also affirmed that “the day President’s tribe walked out from Naga Hoho, he is stripped of all moral right and constitutional privileges to occupy the chair. Therefore, any decision or action adopted thereafter by Naga Hoho under his unconstitutional leadership is outrightly null and void. For any consequential fall out for his continuity in office CPO shall not bear responsibility.”

 

The CPO mentioned that Naga Hoho came under severe test when some tribes walked out on protest but few remnants tribal Hoho of Nagaland firmly stood with the apex body in greater interest of the Nagas. “Meantime the President in-question was expected to act wisely in line of given conditions both from his exited parent Hoho as well as NH from within, which unfortunately he totally ignored. Notwithstanding serious hurdles confronted throughout, never before was the image and integrity of NH brought to lowest ebb as is today,” the CPO stated.

 

Therefore, in order to salvage sinking credibility and responsibility of NH the APO, CPO, Pochury Hoho and Rengma Hoho jointly on July 29, 2018 “stricture the functioning of Chuba Ozukum as President or participating in any event or talk as Official President of Naga Hoho at all cost henceforth”, ironically without any sense of remorse of realization on his part, it stated.

 

It added that the said stricture by the four federating units of Nagaland remains in force, “President in-question singly dared signed a controversial document the reading of which (Declaration point 6 & 7) is clearly a warning and intimidation to any Naga or group or assembly, irrespective of their given capacity or obligation.”

 

The original Naga political principle for which CPO has steadfastly supported and un-wavered position it holds till date is well known to the NH in particular and the Nagas in general, it affirmed.

 

“CPO respects ongoing peace process of all negotiating groups but strongly object to the expression and intention of calling other Naga member or group or assembly as un-mandated or unauthorized or open threat to brand them anti national and ban their entry in Naga territory,” the Organization firmly stated.

 

“NH Open Letter, President in-implication himself a signatory is even more self contradictory and apparently a post mortem rationalization of August 23 Declaration,” it assumed.

 

The CPO also clarified that “nowhere in the declaration is mentioned Nagas of Manipur.”

 

“Had not the two NH designated officials rightly questioned the modus operandi of President singly signing a questionable declaration, Hoho defendants might not come out with such clarification though under the garb of rebuttal. Four defendants justified their President by stating that the latter signed the declaration in their presence and hence question of unilateral decision of President does not arise,” it stated in support of their argument.

 

It further questioned that if the intent of the declaration was truly “in the best interest of the Nagas of Manipur… solely for the people of Nagas in Manipur… not for any other Naga areas within and outside Nagaland” then it should have been worded carefully, accordingly leaving no room for misinterpretation or word twisting. But actual language in the joint declaration and post reaction unilateral clarification issued by President-in question and others speaks differently.”