The Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN) has raised serious questions over the present status of the Naga political dialogue, particularly the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position, and sought clarification from the Government of India on the reported appointment of a Union Minister of State to lead the Naga peace process.
In a statement issued by its Media Committee, the recently formed forum said the unresolved Naga political issue continued to have a profound impact on the social, political and economic life of the Naga people and the State of Nagaland.
The CNFN said an early political settlement was essential and alleged that prolonged uncertainty, coupled with multiple taxation, extortion, intimidation and other activities by armed groups, had contributed to insecurity and economic stagnation in the State.
The Forum alleged that the prolonged negotiations between Naga political groups and the Government of India under ceasefire arrangements had contributed to what it described as a “spectacular retrogression” in the State’s development and economy.
It also expressed concern over what it described as multiple taxation, kidnappings for ransom, threats, intimidation and harassment of members of the public by armed tax collectors.
Referring particularly to Dimapur, the CNFN said the city, which it described as once a thriving and a fast developing city, had suffered from the prolonged presence of what it termed “anti-social and anti-state elements”.
Framework Agreement and Agreed Position
The CNFN traced the present political process to the agreements reached between the Government of India and the Naga negotiating groups.
It stated that after 18 years of negotiations, the Framework Agreement between the Government of India and NSCN (IM) was signed on August 3, 2015. This was followed by the Agreed Position between the Government of India and the Working Committee of the Naga National Political Groups (WC, NNPGs) on November 17, 2017, after several years of negotiations.
According to the CNFN, these agreements represented the culmination of extensive negotiations involving successive interlocutors and Naga political representatives.
The Forum said the political negotiations were subsequently brought to an official closure on October 31, 2019, during the tenure of then Interlocutor, RN Ravi, who was also Governor of Nagaland at the time.
The CNFN further stated that the outcome of the negotiations and the resultant agreements were subsequently placed before the Nagaland Legislative Assembly through the Governor’s address during the fifth session of the 13th NLA on January 17, 2020.
It said the Assembly subsequently adopted the Motion of Thanks on the Governor’s address.
The Forum argued that the State Government had, at that stage, fulfilled its role as a facilitator in the political process.
Questions over removal of RN Ravi, PAC resolution
The CNFN alleged that the State Government and NSCN (IM) subsequently lobbied for the removal of RN Ravi as interlocutor and claimed that the move had adversely affected the Naga political process.
It alleged that although Ravi was removed, the Government of India did not appoint another interlocutor with the same political status.
According to the Forum, this created a vacuum in the political process and weakened the momentum towards a logical conclusion of the negotiations.
The CNFN said it was particularly concerned that the issue had subsequently remained underdeveloped despite the agreements reached between the parties.
“The prejudice of the State Govt and the NSCN(IM) had a devastating impact on the political status of the Nagas and its essential processes for logical conclusion, besides the issue being under-nurtured as of today,” it stated.
The Forum identified the recent resolution of the State Government’s Political Affairs Committee (PAC) seeking the appointment of a Union Minister of State as interlocutor for the Naga political issue as a matter requiring public scrutiny.
It also referred to Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio’s Independence Day address on August 15, 2026, in which he announced that the Government of India had constituted a committee headed by the Minister of State for Home Affairs to lead the Naga peace talks.
“The very PAC’s demand implies that all those efforts of years invested by the successive Interlocutors and the Naga negotiators, which could gave birth to the twin agreements, namely, the Framework Agreement and Agreed Position, are literally considered worthless and therefore treated as trash and both the agreements are now put in the dustbin. The second implication is that the new Ministerial in-charge if appointed, will have totally fresh political negotiations,” the Forum stated.
Download Nagaland Tribune app on Google Play
Questions NSCN (IM) position
The Forum also questioned the position of NSCN (IM) on the latest development. It referred to a statement by NSCN (IM) Deputy Ato Kilonser, VS Atem, who, according to the CNFN, endorsed the PAC resolution and the Chief Minister’s announcement regarding the new arrangement.
“It is therefore obvious that NSCN(IM) has abrogated the Framework Agreement; it is literally discarded by NSCN(IM); yet, as per their habit, the Chairman of NSCN(IM), Q Toccu in his Naga Independence Day speech upheld the Framework Agreement yet again,” the Forum claimed.
The Forum, therefore, called upon NSCN (IM) to make its political position clear to the Naga public as to whether they have discarded the Framework Agreement or are for it.
The CNFN said the Naga public deserve the truth and not the deception, adding, “The people of Nagaland will not accept exploitative patriotism anymore”.
‘Agreed Position signatories remain committed’
Contrary to what it described as the position of “anti-solution lobbyists”, the CNFN said the signatories to the Agreed Position remained committed to an early political settlement based on the agreement already reached.
It also questioned the role of the PAC, arguing that facilitators should not seek to supersede the Naga political negotiators at any stage of the peace process.
Meanwhile, the CNFN raised questions regarding the relationship between the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and the Political Affairs Committee.
It said the NLA had officially endorsed both agreements during an Assembly session and argued that any attempt to reverse or alter such an officially recorded position should be brought before the Assembly through an appropriate motion or legal amendment.
The Forum questioned how, in the absence of such a process, a subordinate body such as the PAC could adopt a position that appeared different from the position earlier recorded by the Assembly.
Stating that the PAC has made the Nagaland Legislative Assembly a mockery, the Forum said, “The 60 Members are elected by the citizens of Nagaland and they are to remain accountable to the electors but not to take the voters for a ride.”
Three questions for Government of India
The Forum raised three specific questions concerning the reported appointment of the Union Minister of State.
First, it asked whether the Government of India had formally authorised the Chief Minister of Nagaland to announce the appointment of the Union Minister of State to handle the Naga political issue.
If such authorisation had been given, the CNFN demanded that the details to be made public. If no such authorisation had been given, the forum questioned under what authority the Chief Minister had made the announcement and misled the stakeholder on the status of Naga political talks.
Second, the CNFN pointed to what it described as the continued silence of the Government of India, noting that the Centre had neither confirmed nor denied the Chief Minister’s announcement.
Third, it asked whether the earlier political agreements had been set aside and whether the reported new emissary had been appointed to initiate a fresh negotiation process.
The CNFN said the people of Nagaland, as well as Nagas in general, deserved a clear statement on the actual status and mandate of the new arrangement.
