IMPHAL, Mar 16: An official communiqué by the former chairman, Ceasefire Monitoring Group, Lt. Gen. R.V. Kulkarni (retd) to Naveen Verma, Jt Secy (NE), ministry of home affairs, Government of India dated February 6, 2007, does indicate the former had been assured verbally on telephone that the a new camp location of the NSCN(IM) at Khangkhui-Shiroy forest area stood approved. The letter, marked “secret” which is included as “Annexure-A” in the executive summary of a “fact finding report” by a group of four lawyers Nandita Haksar, Timikha Koza, Sebestian Hongray and Edward Belho,
on the “working of the of the ceasefire in Naga area” with special reference to the 15-day standoff at Shirui between the Assam Rifles and the NSCN(IM) and another at Kepamedzu in Nagaland, both in January this year, is a clarification to a meeting in the home secretary’s chambers at 11.30am on June 3, 2005, where the DGMO deferred a decision till he has had an interaction with the GOC-in-C Eastern Command on June 14.
Lt. Gen. Kulkarni’s letter said he “spoke to DGMO on June 15, 2005 when he stated that the confirmation should be awaited.”
Lt. Gen. Kulkarni’s letter further said he “again spoke to DGMO on June 16, 2005, who stated that the new location of the NSCN(IM) stands approved with the following conditions: (i) NSCN(IM) would refrain from supporting the Valley Based Groups in Manipur; (ii) No more Camps would be considered, hereafter.”
The retired general’s letter said he had conveyed this development “to the NSCN(IM) functionaries at Dimapur/Delhi on June 16, 2005.”
The broad theme of the 10-page “fact finding report” by the four lawyers is that the Assam Rifles and the Army have been playing mischief through many subterfuges such as indicated by the letter by the former chairman of the ceasefire monitoring group. The very opening paragraph of the executive summary makes this very clear when it said the two incidents “threatened to break the ceasefire between the NSCN(IM) and the Government of India, it also led ot communal tensions between Nagas and Meiteis and it was only because of the timely intervention of the Naga people and their leaders that prevented the incidents from escalating into a war.”
The report also claimed that the two incidents threw up many complex questions relating to rule of law, democracy and principles of good governance,” prompting the four lawyers to delve further into the matter.
On the January 19 to February 2, siege of Shirui village by the Assam Rifles, the report said the Assam Rifles demanded the NSCN(IM) cadres to surrender their weapons and leave the camp while the NSCN(IM) maintained that the camp had been set up with the approval of the Ceasefire Monitoring Group chairman.
“The controversy over whether the Shirui camp was “designated”, “approved” or “taken not of” camp led to communal tensions between the Nagas and Meiteis and tended to fan communal passions.” The report claimed.
Giving a brief history of the Shirui camp of the NSCN(IM), the report said “On July 10, 2005 Naga Army set up camp at Raka Kong area; from Raka Kong area the Naga Army shifted to the Khapa area; from Khapa area to Tangam area in October 2006 but on the eve of the Assembly elections in February 2007 the Assam Rifles attacked the camp at Tangam and so the NSCN shifted back to Raka Kong in February 2007.”
“Later that year the Naga Army shifted to the Tourist Lodge at Shirui but the next year they had to shift out of the Village and they went to Khampi village. It was in August 2008 they occupied the Tourist Lodge again. On 19th January the Assam Rifles suddenly surrounded the village and the camp and in all probability (would have) attacked the camp if the women had not started their protest,” the report said.
The siege lasted for 15 days and it was on February 2, 2009 that the siege was lifted and the NSCN cadres were allowed to go to the designated camp at Senapati District, Manipur, the report further said.
The report also said all the while the Assam Rifles continued to make contradictory statements basing its charges on what various newspapers reported were the statements of the paramilitary force.
In one newspaper report the Assam Rifles PRO is quoted to have said the ceasefire between the NSCN(IM) and the Government of India is applicable only to the state of Nagaland and did not extend to Manipur and therefore there could be no designated camps in Manipur.
Yet in another newspaper report, the same official is quoted as saying that there were three “taken note of” camps of the NSCN(IM) in Manipur namely at “Bonning in Senapati district, Oklong in Tamenglong District, and Phungchong in Chandel District.”
Quoting another interview of the DIG Assam Rifles, Brig. RS Mander by an individual, the report said the officer said there were three “designated camps” of the NSCN(IM) in three districts: Tamenglong, Senapati and Chandel.
Quoting yet another Assam Rifles officer in Dimapur, the report said the officer told the fact finding team that there were four “location taken not of” for the NSCN(IM) in Nagaland state and three in Manipur.
He also was quoted as saying there were no such camps of the NSCN(K) and also added that what he has said was the official position of the Union ministry of home affairs.
Quoting yet another officer, this time the PRO Indian Army in Imphal, the report said this officer told them that as far as the Army was concerned “the ceasefire with the NSCN(IM) was not applicable in Manipur and there was no unofficial ceasefire in the State. Any NSCN personnel caught with arms would be dealt with accordingly.”
He also was quoted as saying “there were no ‘taken note of’ camps of the NSCN(IM) in Manipur as far as the Ministry of Defence or the Indian Army” was concerned. He is further quoted as saying that “the NSCN cadres from Shirui were not taken to any camp in Senapati District, they were merely provided safe passage out of Ukhrul District.”
The report also claimed that the incumbent chairman of the Ceasefire Monitoring Group, Lt. Gen Mandhantha Singh, told the fact finding team that he had no jurisdiction over anything happening in Manipur and hence did not go to Shirui. He is also quoted as saying he was not briefed by his predecessor, Lt. Gen. R.V. Kulkarni and that the only brief he has for his new job was to monitor the ceasefire ground rules and that “he did not need to know the past history.”
The report said the chief minister Okram Ibobi also claimed that there was no ceasefiree in the State of Manipur and there were no designated camps of the NSCN(IM) within the state. It also said during the 15-day siege of Shirui, no Meitei political leaders, organisations or NGOs went to Shirui.
It acknowledged that the root cause of this denial of the unofficial ceasefire and opposition to the extension of the ceasefire to the state of Manipur is political, as meeting the demands of the Nagas for integration into a single Naga administrative unit would amount to breaking up Manipur.
Both the demands for Naga integration as well as Manipur integrity being political, a settlement can only come about via political dialogue, it said. It also said the Naga demand can be easily accommodated within the Constitution of India as changing the boundary of a state can be done by a simple majority of the Parliament without even the consent of the concerned state, whereas “the demand for the integrity of Manipur (or any other state within the Union of India) is not protected by the Indian Constitution since we do not have a federal system.” It said adding “therefore the Meitei demand requires a change in the Constitution of India.”
The report also suggested that the ceasefire be “extended to the State of Manipur with the explicit mention that the extention of the ceasefire has no implication whatsoever on the political negotiations and it is merely an administrative measure to create a political atmosphere where both the political demands can be discussed.”
Source: Imphal Free Press
.::. All my articles can be view here: MELTED HEARTS .::.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=c5e2df3f-1605-4933-8364-e37b1d710329)
on the “working of the of the ceasefire in Naga area” with special reference to the 15-day standoff at Shirui between the Assam Rifles and the NSCN(IM) and another at Kepamedzu in Nagaland, both in January this year, is a clarification to a meeting in the home secretary’s chambers at 11.30am on June 3, 2005, where the DGMO deferred a decision till he has had an interaction with the GOC-in-C Eastern Command on June 14.
Lt. Gen. Kulkarni’s letter said he “spoke to DGMO on June 15, 2005 when he stated that the confirmation should be awaited.”
Lt. Gen. Kulkarni’s letter further said he “again spoke to DGMO on June 16, 2005, who stated that the new location of the NSCN(IM) stands approved with the following conditions: (i) NSCN(IM) would refrain from supporting the Valley Based Groups in Manipur; (ii) No more Camps would be considered, hereafter.”
The retired general’s letter said he had conveyed this development “to the NSCN(IM) functionaries at Dimapur/Delhi on June 16, 2005.”
The broad theme of the 10-page “fact finding report” by the four lawyers is that the Assam Rifles and the Army have been playing mischief through many subterfuges such as indicated by the letter by the former chairman of the ceasefire monitoring group. The very opening paragraph of the executive summary makes this very clear when it said the two incidents “threatened to break the ceasefire between the NSCN(IM) and the Government of India, it also led ot communal tensions between Nagas and Meiteis and it was only because of the timely intervention of the Naga people and their leaders that prevented the incidents from escalating into a war.”
The report also claimed that the two incidents threw up many complex questions relating to rule of law, democracy and principles of good governance,” prompting the four lawyers to delve further into the matter.
On the January 19 to February 2, siege of Shirui village by the Assam Rifles, the report said the Assam Rifles demanded the NSCN(IM) cadres to surrender their weapons and leave the camp while the NSCN(IM) maintained that the camp had been set up with the approval of the Ceasefire Monitoring Group chairman.
“The controversy over whether the Shirui camp was “designated”, “approved” or “taken not of” camp led to communal tensions between the Nagas and Meiteis and tended to fan communal passions.” The report claimed.
Giving a brief history of the Shirui camp of the NSCN(IM), the report said “On July 10, 2005 Naga Army set up camp at Raka Kong area; from Raka Kong area the Naga Army shifted to the Khapa area; from Khapa area to Tangam area in October 2006 but on the eve of the Assembly elections in February 2007 the Assam Rifles attacked the camp at Tangam and so the NSCN shifted back to Raka Kong in February 2007.”
“Later that year the Naga Army shifted to the Tourist Lodge at Shirui but the next year they had to shift out of the Village and they went to Khampi village. It was in August 2008 they occupied the Tourist Lodge again. On 19th January the Assam Rifles suddenly surrounded the village and the camp and in all probability (would have) attacked the camp if the women had not started their protest,” the report said.
The siege lasted for 15 days and it was on February 2, 2009 that the siege was lifted and the NSCN cadres were allowed to go to the designated camp at Senapati District, Manipur, the report further said.
The report also said all the while the Assam Rifles continued to make contradictory statements basing its charges on what various newspapers reported were the statements of the paramilitary force.
In one newspaper report the Assam Rifles PRO is quoted to have said the ceasefire between the NSCN(IM) and the Government of India is applicable only to the state of Nagaland and did not extend to Manipur and therefore there could be no designated camps in Manipur.
Yet in another newspaper report, the same official is quoted as saying that there were three “taken note of” camps of the NSCN(IM) in Manipur namely at “Bonning in Senapati district, Oklong in Tamenglong District, and Phungchong in Chandel District.”
Quoting another interview of the DIG Assam Rifles, Brig. RS Mander by an individual, the report said the officer said there were three “designated camps” of the NSCN(IM) in three districts: Tamenglong, Senapati and Chandel.
Quoting yet another Assam Rifles officer in Dimapur, the report said the officer told the fact finding team that there were four “location taken not of” for the NSCN(IM) in Nagaland state and three in Manipur.
He also was quoted as saying there were no such camps of the NSCN(K) and also added that what he has said was the official position of the Union ministry of home affairs.
Quoting yet another officer, this time the PRO Indian Army in Imphal, the report said this officer told them that as far as the Army was concerned “the ceasefire with the NSCN(IM) was not applicable in Manipur and there was no unofficial ceasefire in the State. Any NSCN personnel caught with arms would be dealt with accordingly.”
He also was quoted as saying “there were no ‘taken note of’ camps of the NSCN(IM) in Manipur as far as the Ministry of Defence or the Indian Army” was concerned. He is further quoted as saying that “the NSCN cadres from Shirui were not taken to any camp in Senapati District, they were merely provided safe passage out of Ukhrul District.”
The report also claimed that the incumbent chairman of the Ceasefire Monitoring Group, Lt. Gen Mandhantha Singh, told the fact finding team that he had no jurisdiction over anything happening in Manipur and hence did not go to Shirui. He is also quoted as saying he was not briefed by his predecessor, Lt. Gen. R.V. Kulkarni and that the only brief he has for his new job was to monitor the ceasefire ground rules and that “he did not need to know the past history.”
The report said the chief minister Okram Ibobi also claimed that there was no ceasefiree in the State of Manipur and there were no designated camps of the NSCN(IM) within the state. It also said during the 15-day siege of Shirui, no Meitei political leaders, organisations or NGOs went to Shirui.
It acknowledged that the root cause of this denial of the unofficial ceasefire and opposition to the extension of the ceasefire to the state of Manipur is political, as meeting the demands of the Nagas for integration into a single Naga administrative unit would amount to breaking up Manipur.
Both the demands for Naga integration as well as Manipur integrity being political, a settlement can only come about via political dialogue, it said. It also said the Naga demand can be easily accommodated within the Constitution of India as changing the boundary of a state can be done by a simple majority of the Parliament without even the consent of the concerned state, whereas “the demand for the integrity of Manipur (or any other state within the Union of India) is not protected by the Indian Constitution since we do not have a federal system.” It said adding “therefore the Meitei demand requires a change in the Constitution of India.”
The report also suggested that the ceasefire be “extended to the State of Manipur with the explicit mention that the extention of the ceasefire has no implication whatsoever on the political negotiations and it is merely an administrative measure to create a political atmosphere where both the political demands can be discussed.”
Source: Imphal Free Press
.::. All my articles can be view here: MELTED HEARTS .::.
No comments:
Post a Comment