Kohima: The Eastern Nagaland People’s Organisation (ENPO) expressed dismay at a draft proposal circulating in local media that is purportedly submitted by them to the Ministry of Home Affairs and termed it as fake.
The draft, which has been making rounds, is reported as the original proposal discussed during ongoing talks between the Government of India and ENPO concerning a new arrangement for the socio-economic uplift of eastern Nagaland.
However, the ENPO denied the authenticity of the draft proposal and termed it as “completely false and misleading”.
Also Read: Meghalaya: New route to facilitate Assam vehicles to Sohra, tourist spots
The ENPO further urged all parties to refrain from engaging in “unscrupulous and malicious practices” and to uphold the true Christian spirit.
Among the alleged points in the fake draft proposal were two particularly contentious issues, the ENPO said.
The first point suggested pursuing the disarmament of national workers from eastern Nagaland as part of the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), which ENPO refuted, asserting that their original draft did not demand the surrender of any such workers or their arms.
Also Read: Nagaland: EC provides ex-gratia of Rs 15 lakh to Assam man
They stated that the Naga national movement is a collective cause, and they intend to work towards peace and progress in the region.
The second point mentioned in the “draft” proposed the erection of border fencing along the Indo-Myanmar border in eastern Nagaland.
ENPO clarified that their genuine draft did not include any such provision, as they believe in maintaining ties with their ethnic brethren across artificial borders, especially those residing in the border areas.
ENPO recalled their strong opposition to a similar attempt to construct border fencing at the Myanmar border in 2016 when they organised a protest rally at Pangsha helipad to block the move.
In 2017, ENPO officials, along with the Khiamniungan Tribal Council, submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister opposing the border fencing.
The ENPO firmly asserted that the proposal for border fencing was baseless and unfounded.