What Is Naga Framework Agreement
Mr Ravi signed the agreement on behalf of the Centre in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The other two signatories were Isak Chishi Swu, who died in 2016, and Thuingaleng Muivah, 86, who is leading the talks. Currently, the NSCN (IM) is conducting informal interviews with officials of the Intelligence Bureau. Efforts are being made on both sides to bring the Nagas to the negotiating table – a task that could have been attempted even before the signing of the framework agreement. “If there is no unity between the Naga groups, there can be no lasting solution to the uprising,” an NSCN leader said. The agreement states: “Both parties […] are aware of the universal principle that, in a democracy, sovereignty belongs to the people. As a result, the Indian government and the NSCN reached an agreement on August 3, 2015 as an honorable solution, taking into account the wishes of the people for a division of sovereign power as defined in the competences. . It will ensure a new, lasting and inclusive relationship of peaceful coexistence between the two entities. The NSCN spoke to Ravi as an interlocutor and not as a governor.
But since Ravi created Imbroglio in the conversation process, the Prime Minister has given the mandate to continue the conference with an IB team as an accelerated channel of communication and to clarify outstanding jurisdictional issues. Once everything is clear, the agreement will take place at the prime minister`s political level, according to the statement. On the 28th. In October, an NSCN (I-M) team led by its general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah and Ravi met again to discuss possible ways to find an “honorable” solution by resolving the thorny issue of a separate flag and constitution for the Nagas. “The dialogue, which lasted more than four hours, was inconclusive and the two sides agreed to meet again soon. However, it is unlikely that a final agreement between the NSCN (I-M) and the government will be reached by October 31, 2019,” said an official with knowledge of the development. The framework agreement was a new attempt, after more than two decades of political negotiations between India and Naga, to find a credible and lasting solution to the decades-long uprising and to find common ground for the political rights of the Naga people, which calls for a greater Nagalim. But a shadow of distrust took hold of her. In 1997, the NSCN(I-M) signed a ceasefire agreement with the government. The agreement guaranteed that while the government would not push for counterinsurgency operations against NSCN (I-M) cadres and its leaders, the rebels would not target the armed forces. Five years have already passed since 2015 and there is also general fatigue among most Naga groups because of the long talks. Better to embrace what is offered and not to crave what cannot be granted. However, it is unlikely that the IM faction of the NSCN will take weapons into their hands on a large scale, as they have no framework for struggle after the 1997 ceasefire agreement. The political mindset in the state has changed a lot and support for Muivah has declined over the years in Nagaland. The statement said the framework agreement, which was “manipulated” by Ravi, did not contain the word “new,” while referring to the agreement on the peaceful coexistence of the two entities. Interestingly, by this time, other Naga groups had signed a nine-point agreement – in June 1947 – known as the Naga-Akbar Hyderi Agreement (then Governor of Assam). Phizo refused. In a referendum in 1951, Phizo claimed 99% support for a “sovereign Naga state.” On 3 August, the NSCN(IM) and the United Norwegian Council launched several calls to reaffirm their support for the framework agreement. The deal, described as “historic” by Prime Minister Modi, was signed after more than 80 rounds of talks between the government and various stakeholders, but the exact details of the deal were not disclosed. In a statement issued after the signing of the agreement, the government said it had “recognized the unique history, culture and position of the Nagas, as well as their feelings and aspirations.
The NSCN understood and valued India`s political system and governance. The ceasefire agreement was signed in 1997 and a peace process has begun. In 2003, Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Nagaland as Prime Minister. His visit generated goodwill for the peace process. Vajpayee won hearts by beginning his speech in the local language, praising Nagaland`s “unique history” and the contribution of the Naga people to crucial moments in the Indochinese war of 1962 and the Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999. Given that all previous agreements on the Naga political issue had failed – the 9-point agreement of 1947, the 16-point agreement of 1960 and the Shillong agreement of 1975 – all eyes are now on the success of the framework agreement. According to the NSCN(IM) leadership, the Nagas were not stubborn and have brought the political talks between Indo and Naga so far, but now it is the interpretation of the framework agreement that has led to a stalemate. “The urgent irony is that without the Naga and Yehzabo national flag, everything that has been discussed and agreed upon must be destroyed. Furthermore, the framework agreement should not be distorted to project that it falls within the competence of the Indian Constitution,” the NSCN (IM) said in a statement. In 1975, a peace agreement was signed between the government and the NNC. Dubbed the Shillong Agreement under the agreement, the NNC promised to give up arms, but several senior NNC leaders disagreed with the agreement and split up to create their own factions. One such faction was the NSCN, which later split into the NSCN (I-M) faction.
It is clear that the final negotiations of the Naga insurgent groups with the Indian government must be conducted. Now, with the framework agreement in hand, none of the Naga groups are looking for a temporary solution. The statement is published for the first time as (NSCN-IM) and the Center intended to hide the sensitive details mentioned in the agreement. As of October 2020, the final agreement has not yet taken place and differences have arisen due to the NSCN`s (IM) demand for a special flag, constitution and a larger Nagalim, which delays and tires the discussion process. Through the FA publication, the NSCN pointed out that Ravi had “manipulated” the original deal and was therefore able to act beyond New Delhi`s mandate and had to be removed from office because he had broken his self-confidence. But that`s certainly not all. For now, she doesn`t want to blame the Naga leaders for the division of opinion among themselves, but rather wants to make Ravi the only factor behind it. They could not have acted otherwise, the NSCN argues, because Ravi gave them a “manipulated” copy of the agreement. The high-profile framework agreement signed between the Modi government and the largest Naga insurgent group, the NSCN (IM), entered its sixth year on August 3 without making any progress in finding a lasting solution to the decades-long uprising. The unfulfilled promises of the framework agreement have led to a huge lack of trust, dissatisfaction, disunity and uncertainty among the Nagas. If left untreated, they can have an impact on peace and stability in the region. By rejecting what was said in the committee`s report, the NSCN tried to tell the Naga public that it has not strayed from its previous position, and that only the NSCN is trying to get the best deal for the people against all odds.
This stated firmness of intent can also be read as an attempt to reject Ravi`s desire to involve more stakeholders in the peace process in order to likely dilute the NSCN`s position as the main negotiator for peace. Sunday`s NSCN-IM statement went on to say that while Ravi often spoke of “one problem, one solution,” he signed two agreements — a framework agreement with the NSCN (IM) and an agreed position with the NNPG. Early 2017, Mr. Ravi had informed a parliamentary body that he had signed a framework agreement with the NSCN-IM after agreeing to an agreement within the Indian Federation with a “special status” and that it was a break from his previous position “with India, not in India”. “Where is he trying to take the Nagas? He simply wants to divide the Naga people by signing a side agreement. After manipulating the content of the fa, he taught his favorite Naga groups how to see FA that FA is simply recognition of Naga`s past and nothing beyond. In the same way that he misled the Parliament`s Standing Committee,” the statement said. Instead of bringing all Naga groups under one roof, the interlocutor signed an agreement in 2017 with a working committee of six Naga National Political Groups (NNPG) led by its president Kitovi Zhimomi. Another obstacle in the talks was that smaller groups such as the Naga National Political Group (NNPG) were strengthened during the Ravi period, much to the chagrin of the NSCN (IM). “Dividing the groups was a strategy, but it provoked the main groups and they stayed away from the talks,” a source said. .