IMPHAL, March 17: The 4-lawyer “fact finding team on the working of the ceasefire in Naga areas” in its 10-page executive summary of its findings, concludes on page-3, perhaps a little hastily, that a particular official document clearly states the Shirui camp of the NSCN(IM) was officially approved, backing up this conclusion with the following line from a letter which says the “new location of the NSCN(IM) camp stands approved.”
The above parenthesised line quoted by the report is from a letter (No. CFMG/IM/2007-1566 dated February 6, 2007) but the entirety of sentence which gives it a rather different hue is omitted. A photocopy of the letter is attached as Annexure-A in the executive summary. The letter does have a line (or part of a line) which says the “new location of the NSCN(IM) camp stands approved,” but this does not at all appear to be an official order or notification.
On the other hand, this seems to be what the former Ceasefire Monitoring Group chairman, Lt. Gen. R.V. Kulkarni (retd), was reporting to Naveen Verma, Joint Secretary (NE), ministry of home affairs, in a letter, telling the latter what he was assured on the telephone by the DGMO on June 16, 2005.
What is clear from the text of the letter is that the Lt. Gen. Kulkarni was keen to have the Shirui camp of the NSCN(IM) approved. Whether he succeeded in persuading the Union government to grant this wish is still not very clear.
In his letter Gen. Kulkarni, said he conveyed the wish of the NSCN(IM) to set up a camp at Khangkhui-Shiroy forest area on June 11 over the phone to the DGMO. The DGMO told him to wait till June 14 when he is scheduled to discuss the matter with the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command.
On June 15, Gen. Kulkarni again spoke to the DGMO who again deferred an and clear answer, telling him that “confirmation should be awaited.”
Gen. Kulkarni yet again spoke to the DGMO on June 16 when the latter is reported to have assured the former that the new location stands approved on two conditions that teh NSCN(IM) would refrain from supporting the Valley Based Groups in Manipur and that no more Camps would be considered hereafter.
Gen. Kulkarni on the same day conveys this message to the NSCN(IM) functionaries in Dimapur/Delhi. Neither the annexure letter, nor the “fact finding report” of the four lawyers, mention whether there is a separate official written order backing up the reported verbal assurance.
Whether the NSCN(IM) should or should not have a camp at Shirui is another matter, but the official status of such a camp, from the standpoint of the Government of India, is hardly unambiguous. The report also claims at least on two occasions that India is not a federal state, and by implication that India is a unitary state. This it says empowers the Union to change the boundary of any of its constituent states with or without the consent of the state involved, and also to enter into a ceasefire with any armed group it pleases again with or without the consent of the state concerned.
It also says that “ceasefire with an armed group is part of counter insurgency and not a law and order problem, thereby implying again the Union has the right to bypass the states concerned in ceasefire related issues. This it said is akin to the right given to the states “to issue arms and even arm a group for maintaining law and order.) It said the “Manipur State’s decision to create Village Voluntary Force” is an example of this.
Extending this logic further, it said despite opposition by all affected states, including Nagaland, the Union of India in order to preserve its territorial integrity, went ahead and entered into an agreement with the NSCN(IM) in 1997.
General peace and sense of security has returned to both Nagaland and Manipur, hills and valley, ever since the ceasefire with the NSCN(IM) was initiated, it said. There has also been no large scale violation of human rights by the security forces, it said.
The report sees the Shirui standoff as a fallout of an earlier standoff at Pfutsero in Nagaland’s Phek district where a captain of the Assam Rifles and a soldier strayed into an NSCN(IM) camp even as four other soldiers waited outside the gate. The captain and his men were held captive by the NSCN(IM) men and were released only after much negotiations.
The report claimed the Shirui incident was a way of the Assam Rifles paying back.
The report said Shirui incident has sharpened the communal divide between the Meiteis and Nagas. It cautioned against “the demands that NSCN(IM) should be declared as a terrorist organisation, that it should be banned and that Army should patrol the national highway.”
It said this would justify the militarisation of Manipur undoing the heroic struggle of both the Nagas and Meiteis against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act....” adding “those in the valley who welcomed the siege of Shirui did not fully realise the sinister role of intelligence agencies and even a section of armed forces who misled the people and hid the fact that the Shirui camp had been set up with the approval of the armed forces and the CFMG.”
It also said “the Assam Rifles attempt to provoke the NSCN to break the ground rules and to fire could have led to very serious consequences for all the people of Manipur.”
(IFP)
The above parenthesised line quoted by the report is from a letter (No. CFMG/IM/2007-1566 dated February 6, 2007) but the entirety of sentence which gives it a rather different hue is omitted. A photocopy of the letter is attached as Annexure-A in the executive summary. The letter does have a line (or part of a line) which says the “new location of the NSCN(IM) camp stands approved,” but this does not at all appear to be an official order or notification.
On the other hand, this seems to be what the former Ceasefire Monitoring Group chairman, Lt. Gen. R.V. Kulkarni (retd), was reporting to Naveen Verma, Joint Secretary (NE), ministry of home affairs, in a letter, telling the latter what he was assured on the telephone by the DGMO on June 16, 2005.
What is clear from the text of the letter is that the Lt. Gen. Kulkarni was keen to have the Shirui camp of the NSCN(IM) approved. Whether he succeeded in persuading the Union government to grant this wish is still not very clear.
In his letter Gen. Kulkarni, said he conveyed the wish of the NSCN(IM) to set up a camp at Khangkhui-Shiroy forest area on June 11 over the phone to the DGMO. The DGMO told him to wait till June 14 when he is scheduled to discuss the matter with the GOC-in-C, Eastern Command.
On June 15, Gen. Kulkarni again spoke to the DGMO who again deferred an and clear answer, telling him that “confirmation should be awaited.”
Gen. Kulkarni yet again spoke to the DGMO on June 16 when the latter is reported to have assured the former that the new location stands approved on two conditions that teh NSCN(IM) would refrain from supporting the Valley Based Groups in Manipur and that no more Camps would be considered hereafter.
Gen. Kulkarni on the same day conveys this message to the NSCN(IM) functionaries in Dimapur/Delhi. Neither the annexure letter, nor the “fact finding report” of the four lawyers, mention whether there is a separate official written order backing up the reported verbal assurance.
Whether the NSCN(IM) should or should not have a camp at Shirui is another matter, but the official status of such a camp, from the standpoint of the Government of India, is hardly unambiguous. The report also claims at least on two occasions that India is not a federal state, and by implication that India is a unitary state. This it says empowers the Union to change the boundary of any of its constituent states with or without the consent of the state involved, and also to enter into a ceasefire with any armed group it pleases again with or without the consent of the state concerned.
It also says that “ceasefire with an armed group is part of counter insurgency and not a law and order problem, thereby implying again the Union has the right to bypass the states concerned in ceasefire related issues. This it said is akin to the right given to the states “to issue arms and even arm a group for maintaining law and order.) It said the “Manipur State’s decision to create Village Voluntary Force” is an example of this.
Extending this logic further, it said despite opposition by all affected states, including Nagaland, the Union of India in order to preserve its territorial integrity, went ahead and entered into an agreement with the NSCN(IM) in 1997.
General peace and sense of security has returned to both Nagaland and Manipur, hills and valley, ever since the ceasefire with the NSCN(IM) was initiated, it said. There has also been no large scale violation of human rights by the security forces, it said.
The report sees the Shirui standoff as a fallout of an earlier standoff at Pfutsero in Nagaland’s Phek district where a captain of the Assam Rifles and a soldier strayed into an NSCN(IM) camp even as four other soldiers waited outside the gate. The captain and his men were held captive by the NSCN(IM) men and were released only after much negotiations.
The report claimed the Shirui incident was a way of the Assam Rifles paying back.
The report said Shirui incident has sharpened the communal divide between the Meiteis and Nagas. It cautioned against “the demands that NSCN(IM) should be declared as a terrorist organisation, that it should be banned and that Army should patrol the national highway.”
It said this would justify the militarisation of Manipur undoing the heroic struggle of both the Nagas and Meiteis against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act....” adding “those in the valley who welcomed the siege of Shirui did not fully realise the sinister role of intelligence agencies and even a section of armed forces who misled the people and hid the fact that the Shirui camp had been set up with the approval of the armed forces and the CFMG.”
It also said “the Assam Rifles attempt to provoke the NSCN to break the ground rules and to fire could have led to very serious consequences for all the people of Manipur.”
(IFP)
Comments