Putting the record straight on 16-point agreement

It is necessitated to put the record straight for the benefit of public in general and youngsters in particular over the 16 point agreement as NPCC are frequently raising the issue. When the 16 point proposal draft was prepared during the 3rd session of the Naga People’s Convention held at Mokokchung Dated 22-26 oct 1959, NPC adopted 6(six) resolutions. Resolution no 6(a) A working committee with 3 representative from every tribe be formed to see the implementation of the decisions of the Third Session of the Naga People Convention held at Mokokchung in October, 1959.
The names of NPC delegates who took part during the discussion on July 27 and 28 with Foreign Secretary Government of India were as follows:
1.    Dr.Imkongliba Ao. President NPC
2.    Mr. Jasokie Angami Secretary NPC
3.    Mr. Chubatoshi Jamir Jt.secretary NPC
4.    Mr.R.C Chiten Jamir Ao, Ao representative
5.    Mr. Khelhoshe Sema, Sema representative
6.    Mr. Etsorhma Lothe, Lothe representative
7.    Mr. Sentsi Rengma, Rengma representative
8.    Mr. Lakhimong Yimchunger, Yimchunger representative
9.    Mr. Litingse Sangtem, Sangtem representative
10.     Mr. Pauting Phom, Phom representative
11.     Mr. Pudenu Demo Chakesang, Chakesang representative
12.     Mr. Imtichuba Chang, Chang representative
13.     Mr. Thangwang Kongyak, Kongyak representative
14.     Mr. Thinuowholie Liegise Zeliang, Zeliang- Kuki representative
15.     Mr. T.N Angami, Angami representative
16.    Mr. Sashimeren Aier, Consultant
17.     Mr. H. Zopianga, Consultant
18.     Mr. Goyiepra kenye, Consultant
19.     Mr. P. Shilu Ao, Consultant
The above evidence proved that NPC violated its own resolution since only one representative from each tribe took part which is only one third. The two third objected because their (NPC) resolution No. 6(b) resolved that the working committee be entrusted to selected a Body to be called the Negotiating Body who will make such contacts and negotiation, both with the Government of India and the Naga underground people, to arrive at an amicable political settlement, and by all means, representatives of the underground people could also be taken in as members of the Negotiating Body. The formulation and the process of arriving at a conclusion out of these negotiations should be done within one month of its inception.
It is said that one third of the delegate condemned underground by saying that what underground can do? Two third of the delegates lead by Late. Vizol vice-president NPC abstained to go to Delhi for finalization of 16 point draft proposal upholding their resolution without consulting Under Ground.
The above statement is clearly testified by the letter “My Dear Oko Shilu” by S.C Jamir . This is the reason why Imkong L Imchen Home Minister explain to public that Under Ground were not consulted as resolved by NPC third session. Due to violation of NPC resolution No.6 (a) and (b) by themselves, there was bloodshed between the Under Ground and Over Ground Naga Brothers. If underground were consulted as resolved by NPC, the issue could have been different.
It is true that Naga problem was accorded recognition as a political problem by then Prime Minister Late. P.V Narasimha Rao and made cease fire agreement in August1, 1997. The opening point of this political negotiation highlights the fact that Indo-Naga issue is First- Not India’s internal law and order issue “but a political issue”
 Second- Between “two entities” and Third- “Fresh political settlement” on the Nagas will be arrived at only through an honorable and negotiated political negotiation. To pave the way for solution to Naga issue, People of Nagaland lead by Naga Hoho boycotted state election in 1998 but NPCC went against the wishes of the people and filled nomination and elected unopposed. Those who contested against the wishes of Naga people were declared anti-naga and widely published. Therefore, there is no confusion that who is anti-naga and anti-party.
Not satisfied by the declaration of anti-naga, NPCC published “Bed Rock of Naga Society”. The Booklet was condemned and burnt by one and all led by NSF. Therefore the question of closed chapter does not arise because damaged cause by the Booklet on Naga issue cannot be treated as closed chapter. It is a fact that NPCC is controlled by AICC high command. AICC lead by then Prime Minister Late  P.V Narasimha Rao agreed to have a “fresh political agreement” to solve the Naga problem but NPCC defied the high command commitment. This clearly shows that NPCC sticks to Bed Rock of Naga Society and NPCC blocks the gate for fresh political agreement. Is it not anti-naga stand?
NPCC stated that Imkong L Imchen violated his oath of secrecy to the constitution of India and therefore lost the moral right to continue not only as cabinet minister but also as member of the state assembly. In this connection, NPCC is reminded that if Imkong L Imchen violated the oath of secrecy the constitution of India, what about the Prime Minister lead by Late P.V Narasimha Rao, Vajpaye, Mammohan Singh? Why they are negotiating for fresh political agreement? Is it not violating Indian constitution? If so NPCC should first take up the issue and tame the Prime Ministers for their violation of secrecy of oath. This also proved that NPCC is anti-naga. Therefore reconciliation should start first from NPCC so that their anti-naga tag is all finalized.
The needs of the hour is Naga’s requires many Imkong L Imchen to take up the Naga issue in Nagaland Assembly so as to move a resolution in the assembly and to appeal to the Government of India to solve the Naga issue through a fresh political settlement as committed by Government of India.                                                                                   

Lanukaba
President,
Farmers Wing,
NPF, Nagaland.