Framework Agreement Of Nagaland

The meeting said it was obliged to respect the agreement to solve the political problem of Indo-Naga. NSCN-IM, one of Naga`s largest groups, signed a framework agreement on August 3, 2015 to end this decades-long problem. For reasons best known to the government and the NSCN (I-M), the framework agreement has been kept secret for the past five years. It was only when the manipulation of the deal was noticed that the NSCN (I-M) decided to pull it out of the closet and reveal it to the world. For five years, the two sides have not signed the formal agreement. In what appeared to be a step that appeared to come from the frustration of the central government – based on a larger mandate for the Modi government in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls – Ravi announced October 31 as the deadline for withdrawing from the peace agreement. The statement said the framework agreement “manipulated” by Ravi did not contain the word “new,” while it referred to the agreement on peaceful coexistence between the two entities. Phizo`s outfits agreed to give up arms as part of the Shillong Agreement, but this gave rise to the NSCN led by Thuingaleng Muivah, which was in China at the time of the agreement and enjoyed the support of the communist regime. According to reports, the interlocutor of the Naga Talks Center, R.N. Ravi, including the governor of Nagaland, and the working committee of the Naga national political groups decided on Thursday to reveal to the people competences – all the crucial issues discussed during the negotiations – before signing the final agreement. What complicated the situation was the subtle manipulation of the framework agreement by the interlocutor, which has been kept secret since it was signed on 3 August 2015. In a specific paragraph of the agreement, according to which “the dialogue between the Government of India and the NSCN has been successfully concluded and we are confident that it will ensure a lasting, including new, relationship of peaceful coexistence between two entities”, the word was deleted, which changed the importance of the agreement itself. This angered the leaders of NSCN (I-M).

They no longer trust Ravi and have asked that he be replaced as the interlocutor. So why did the NSCN (I-M) break its promise to the center? Especially at a time when the interlocutor of the center, R.N. Ravi, did he say that all the important agreements on the peace agreement had been reached last October and that there were only a few minor outstanding issues left to be stitched up? The failure of the final deal could lead to a return of uprisings not only in Nagaland, but also in neighboring states, with NSCN (I-M) playing a leading role in keeping the insurgency stew boiling in that part of the country. All other insurgent groups consider NSCN (I-M) a big brother because they continue their shameful activities. The Chinese are also looking for ways to jump into the fight. We have to be careful. The three factors blocking the agreement are the constitution, the flag and the merger of some areas of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur that adjoin Nagaland to form a larger Nagalim. In their initial demands, he also insisted on merging parts of Myanmar with Nagalim – an impossibility. In his Independence Day speech to the people of Nagaland on August 14, Muivah briefly traced the history of the Naga movement, stating that “the framework agreement recognizes the sovereignty of the Nagas.” He also stated unambiguously that “the Nagas coexist with India, which shares sovereign powers as agreed. But they will not merge with India. As of October 2020, the final agreement did not take place and differences arose as a result of the NSCN(IM) demand for a special flag, constitution and greater nagalim, which are delaying and tiring the discussion process. .

. .