Dimapur, September 23 (MExN): The NSCN Provisional Government has rejected the “Competencies” document submitted to the Government of India (GoI) in January 2020, alleging that it was framed within the Indian Constitution and amounted to “absorption” of Naga sovereignty rather than a negotiated political settlement.
In a statement, Provisional Government chairman Ikato K Chishi Swu said the Competencies were formulated by a committee led by Lt Gen (Retd) VS Atem and submitted to New Delhi on January 2, 2020, without consultation with the NSCN’s National Assembly or Tatar Hoho. He alleged that the document was finalised under sustained pressure from the GoI following a three-month ultimatum issued between August and October 2019.
The Provisional Government was constituted at an ‘Extraordinary Joint Emergency Meeting’ of NSCN civil workers and army officers at Mt Horeb in Eastern Nagalim on July 21, 2026, chaired by Lt Gen (Retd) HS Ramsan, VC. According to the statement, the meeting resolved that the talks between the GoI and the Hebron-based NSCN leadership no longer represented the mandate of the Naga people and decided to pursue “political resistance alongside arms resistance” until what it described as restoration of Naga sovereignty across Nagalim.
Swu alleged that the Competencies contravened the August 3, 2015 Framework Agreement between the NSCN (IM) and GoI. He said there had been a “marked and disconcerting shift” in New Delhi’s position following the death of then NSCN chairman Isak Chishi Swu in 2016. He further alleged that the advanced age and declining health of NSCN general secretary Th Muivah had subsequently been used to press the organisation towards a settlement within the Indian Union.
The statement referred to the 4th Naga People’s Consultative Meeting at Hebron on January 20-21, 2005, which it said had declared the unification of Naga-inhabited areas “legitimate and therefore non-negotiable”. It said any political solution should be pursued through peaceful means with “utmost honesty and sincerity” from both sides.
Listing its objections, the Provisional Government said Clause 2(g) of the Competencies provides for the Election Commission of the proposed Tatar Hoho to function in conjunction with the Election Commission of India. Clause 2(k), it said, provides for the Yaruiwo and Kedallo of the Tatar Hoho to be elected by both houses, followed by a proclamation by the President of India for them to assume office.
Clause 3(vi), it said, provides for the oath of office of the Midan Kilonser and Kilonsers of Naga Regional Territorial Councils to be administered by the Governor of the concerned Indian state. Clause 4(c) provides for Naga representation through Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
The statement also cited Clause 6(c), which provides that “positive steps shall be taken at the earliest” towards resolving outstanding issues through an earnest political process, but does not specify a timeframe. Clauses 7(a) and (b), it said, provide for continued consultation with a proposed Pan Naga Hoho by the Provisional Government of Nagalim, Naga Regional Territorial Councils and District Councils pending integration.
It further cited Clause 29(a), which describes the agreement as constituting a constitution to be called the “Yehzabo” within its defined competencies, and Clause 29(b), which provides for the Naga Yehzabo to be incorporated as a separate chapter in the Constitution of India.
Swu argued that provisions for continued separate Regional Territorial and District Council structures were inconsistent with the stated objective of early resolution and unification. He also said the absence of a defined timeframe could allow an indefinite arrangement within the Indian Union.
On constituent authority, the statement argued that if sovereignty lies with the people, as referenced in the 2015 Framework Agreement, the authority to frame a Naga constitutional order must emanate from the Naga people rather than a negotiating committee or an agreement with the GoI.
Swu rejected the position that the Competencies were merely a draft proposal subject to further negotiations, arguing that a document framed within the Indian Constitution could not logically stand outside it once finalised.
The statement also referred to a November 7, 2024 statement by Th Muivah, chief political negotiator of the NSCN (IM), cautioning of resumption of “violent armed resistance against India” if its political demands were rejected by New Delhi. The Provisional Government alleged that the Hebron leadership had neither rejected nor condemned the Competencies and had instead defended the document.
Tracing the negotiations, the statement recalled the GoI-NSCN ceasefire agreement signed on July 25, 1997, effective August 1, 1997, under which talks were to be held without preconditions, at the level of the Indian Prime Minister and in a third country. It said subsequent talks were held in Paris, New York, Bangkok, Osaka, Geneva and Amsterdam, besides locations in India.
It also referred to the joint communiqué signed in Amsterdam on July 11, 2002, which recorded the GoI’s recognition of the “unique history and situation” of the Nagas, a formulation later reaffirmed in the 2015 Framework Agreement.
The statement recalled the May 24, 1964 ceasefire agreement between the GoI and Federal Government of Nagaland, effective September 6, 1964, and the November 11, 1975 Shillong Accord. It said the accord was rejected by the Naga National Assembly and subsequently cited by the founders of the NSCN when the organisation was formed on January 31, 1980, with Isak Chishi Swu as chairman, SS Khaplang as vice-chairman and Th Muivah as general secretary.
