Z Lohe
In the last para of the statement of RPP published in local papers dated 17.3.205 rightly anticipated that their expressed opinion will invite reaction from certain quarters. I agree with NPP as to the poor performance of the Govt. of Nagaland as facilitator is concerned. After having removed the last Interlocutor RN Ravi, what audacity the very Govt. had to demand for appointment of another Interlocutor from GoI of late beside demanding the third party intervention in the process? Having made the promises in every State election by every political party that when elected, one would pave the way for Naga political solution, it is expected that the ruling Got. in particular would walk the talk. Completely contrary to the promise made before God and men, the State Govt. intentionally reopened the most sensitive chapters of Naga sovereignty and integration issues which were mutually sidelined by the signatories of Framework Agreement and Agreed Position in view of contemporary political realities. After successfully removing the last Interlocutor RN Ravi, calling RK Mish, the Emissary, as Interlocutor does not make him the Interlocutor apart from wishful thinking. All these flip-flops found in local papers dated 5.3.2025 are but aimed at thwarting political solution rather than facilitation to say the least.
Meanwhile, look at the mandatory oath of a contesting candidate has to take at the time of filing nomination including any dummy (standby) candidate: “I do swear in the name of God or I solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.” Lest every candidate takes the oral oath followed by signing on the pro forma, one cannot file nomination papers. The elected candidate will once again take the same oath during the first session of the Assembly for the second time. Within 6 months of the election, one has to take oath in the Assembly. Those who are appointed as Ministers will take the same oath for the third time and then sign in the register before the Governor.
Having committed so, the elected or contested candidate is not a Naga National cadre. The 60 MLAs are therefore not Naga national workers. Whereas, the Naga political issue is outside the purview of those who have taken the said oath. The Naga sovereignty issue is the exclusive subject matter for the Naga National workers.
Whereas, the Naga political issue was negotiated between the GoI and the two Naga negotiating political groups, namely NSCN(IM) and Working Committee (WC) of 7 NNPGs under the atmosphere of Ceasefire as we all know. Both the groups have had basic agreements called Framework of 2015 and Agreed Position of 2017 respectively. More importantly, both the groups had completed the necessary negotiations under these two agreements and declared the transactions as closed by 31.10.2019. The State Govt. of Nagaland had announced the successful closure of the political negotiations in the Governor’s address to the Assembly Session in January, 2020. Thus, the progress report on political negotiations has become the official property of the Assembly since then, and no elected member can disown what was read out by the Governor as the speech is always approved by the State Cabinet.
Only when the Naga political negotiators and the signatories in particular and the Naga public in general understand and uphold the essence of the hard earned Ceasefires under which congenial atmosphere, the Naga representatives had years and months of political parleys with the GoI on the Naga political issue and that subsequent agreements being made, and the process had been officially concluded keeping the solution to follow. Whereas, those agreements were made with the best efforts of the negotiators, and we cannot expect more than what has been achieved in the present context. Thus, whoever undermines the developments so far achieved will only degrade the Naga political status.
The above being the political reality, what RPP has suggested will only boomerang against the Naga interest. It is unethical and there is no legality for those elected members to handle what is outside their purview. If the proposal is to be perused, we will erase what political achievements we have so far made back to square one. If the proposal is to be accepted, we have to be satisfied with the existing Statehood. I consider such opinion to be a meronym of dumping the Naga political issue in a dustbin. No matter how divided and how weak the Nagas are, let us not consign our present and future to hopelessness.
.JPG)
