Dimapur, February 17 (MExN): The NSCN (IM) Ministry of Alee Affairs (Foreign Affairs) has accused the Government of India (GoI) of pursuing what it termed a “hegemonic geo-political ambition” in the Northeast, alleging that recent developments in Manipur and parts of Nagalim are part of a larger strategic design.
In a press statement, the NSCN (IM) claimed that the prevailing situation in Manipur and Nagaland represents “another phase of Indian-state terrorism.” It alleged that Kuki groups operating under the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement were being “trained and armed” and used as instruments to further what it described as India’s strategic objectives in the region.
“It follows a pattern whereby Kukis are projected as the victims and ‘the others’ labelled as the perpetrators,” the NSCN (IM) alleged, terming it a potent strategy to “legitimise a hidden political agenda.”
The statement described this as “pure and simple a pretext” to legitimise the creation of a territorial entity called a “Kuki state” or “Kuki homeland” for the so-called “victims,” which it claimed is part of a larger militaristic geo-political strategy of the Indian state.
The statement alluded to the ongoing Meitei–Kuki conflict in Manipur, the construction of roads such as the German Road/Tiger Road in Naga-inhabited areas, incidents of arson in Ukhrul district, and reported attacks on Nagas in Nagaland.
According to the NSCN (IM), these developments are being used as a pretext to justify the creation of a proposed “Kuki homeland” or state. It alleged that such a move forms part of a broader militaristic and geo-political design.
Meanwhile, the NSCN (IM) linked its claims to India’s wider foreign policy orientation in the Indo-Pacific region. Citing the “Rimland” theory propounded by Nicholas John Spykman, it alleged that India is attempting to expand its influence in the Indo-Pacific region as part of its ambition to become a major global power.
As per the NSCN (IM), Spykman postulated that “who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”
It contended that initiatives such as the Act East Policy and the Kaladan project connecting West Bengal to Myanmar’s Chin State through the Bay of Bengal are part of a long-term strategic effort to consolidate military and political influence in the sub-Himalayan and surrounding regions, including Myanmar.
It also alleged that India’s policies are influenced by right-wing Hindu nationalist forces such as the RSS and security agencies, and claimed that such strategies aim to contain regional independence movements and reshape the political geography of the Northeast.
Internally, the NSCN (IM) accused the GoI of attempting to engage in a “proxy war” through the SoO, as well as fragment Nagalim territory, create divisions among Naga groups, and encourage factionalism during the 28-year Indo-Naga political peace process, which began on August 1, 1997.
The group recalled milestones in the negotiations, including the Amsterdam Joint Communiqué of July 11, 2002, and the signing of the Framework Agreement on August 3, 2015, between the GoI and the NSCN (IM). It acknowledged the roles of successive Prime Ministers, including PV Narasimha Rao, HD Deve Gowda, IK Gujral, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi, in advancing the dialogue process.
However, it claimed that recent developments in Ukhrul and other parts of Nagalim indicate a deviation from the “letter and spirit” of the Framework Agreement and characterised these actions as part of a larger geo-political strategy.
Such measures would be counterproductive in the long term, and India’s ambition to emerge as a major player in the Indo-Pacific region depends on being a responsible and accountable state, it stated.
To this end, the NSCN (IM) maintained that resolving the decades-old Indo-Naga political conflict in line with the “letter and spirit” of the Framework Agreement remains an “acid test.”
However, it reiterated its long-held stand that “Nagalim’s sovereignty, territory, national flag and constitution are non-negotiable” and further asserted that any final settlement must be based on what it described as the recognised uniqueness of Naga history under the 2015 Framework Agreement.
The manner in which Indian leadership chooses to conclude the 28-year Indo-Naga peace process will have implications for the country’s future and its broader geo-political aspirations, it added.
