NSCN (I-M) asserts that the Agreed Position of the NNPGs merely reiterates Article 371A of the Indian Constitution and does not adequately address the unique political and historical rights of the Naga people.
TFM Report
The protracted “Indo-Naga” political dialogue has once again come under the spotlight as 21 Members of Parliament (MPs) have raised questions regarding the status of the Framework Agreement signed between the Government of India (GoI) and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) in 2015. The NSCN (I-M), through its Ministry of Information and Publicity (MIP), on January 12, issued a strong statement urging Indian authorities to uphold their commitment to resolving the Naga political issue.
The Framework Agreement, signed on August 3, 2015, was seen as a historic step toward achieving a peaceful political resolution for the Naga people. At the time, it was celebrated as a breakthrough, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally taking pride in its signing and informing political leaders across India of the milestone. However, nearly a decade later, the NSCN (I-M) has expressed concerns over the delay in implementation and the perceived lack of sincerity from the Indian government. The outfit has warned against potential instability in the region if the Framework Agreement is not implemented
According to the NSCN (I-M), the agreement was a moment of high political significance, aimed at addressing the Naga people’s aspirations. However, the prolonged negotiations, now stretching beyond 27 years, have fueled growing apprehension among the Naga community. The recent intervention by the 21 MPs is viewed as a crucial step in holding the Indian government accountable for delivering on its promises.
The outfit has drawn sharp distinctions between the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position signed with the Working Committee of Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) in 2019. The group asserts that the Agreed Position merely reiterates Article 371A of the Indian Constitution and does not adequately address the unique political and historical rights of the Naga people. This, according to NSCN (I-M), makes it difficult to reconcile the two agreements and move towards a common resolution.
Further complicating the matter is the role of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR), which has reiterated its commitment to the historical and political rights of the Nagas. Citing past declarations, including the Simon Commission of 1929, the Naga Declaration of Independence in 1947, and the 1951 plebiscite, the NSCN maintains that any solution must honor these historical commitments and not be confined within the Indian constitutional framework.
The NSCN (I-M) also criticized certain Naga representatives in the Indian Parliament for allegedly downplaying the issue. The statement recalled an incident from 2001, when MP Apok Jamir dismissed the Indo-Naga political issue during a parliamentary debate on the extension of the Indo-Naga ceasefire in Manipur. Such actions, the NSCN (I-M) argues, undermine the legitimacy of the Naga political struggle.
Given the geopolitical importance of the Naga issue, the NSCN (I-M) urges the Government of India to send the right signals by taking concrete steps toward the agreement’s logical conclusion, preventing further unrest in the Northeast.
With renewed calls for action and growing political pressure, all eyes are now on the Indian government to determine the next course of action in the long-standing Indo-Naga political discourse.