SHILLONG:
The proscribed Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) on September 3 expressed protest against the government’s decision to summon its general secretary Sainkupar Nongtraw despite the ongoing peace talks.
The group also requested that the government remove all charges against all of its leaders and grant instant amnesty to all, warning that it might otherwise be forced to leave the ongoing peace negotiations.
“The HNLC vehemently condemns the recent actions taken by the government, specifically the notice publicly summoning Saiñkupar Nongtraw, general secretary of HNLC, to court amidst the ongoing formal talks,” HNLC general secretary cum publicity secretary Sainkupar Nongtraw said in a statement.
According to him, the chairman and finance secretary of the HNLC had previously been called in during informal discussions.
“Such actions not only undermine our trust in the government but also have the potential to hinder and disrupt the efforts towards achieving a lasting resolution,” he said.
Stating that the HNLC remains committed to the peace process and has actively engaged in negotiations with the state government, Nongtraw said, “However, we are deeply concerned about the double standard exhibited by the government.”
“The state government demanded my attendance at a meeting with a strict deadline of September 30, while the MHA, on the other hand, specifically targets all senior leaders of HNLC to appear in person,” he said.
The HNLC further reiterated that until and unless its political objectives are realized, no leaders or cadres will come forward publicly. Additionally, it encouraged the government to talk with the delegation sent by the Vice Chairman and approved by the HNLC central executive committee.
To ensure the success of the peace process, Nongtraw said, “We demand that the charges against HNLC leaders be dropped and a general amnesty be offered. Without these essential steps, our key leader will not actively participate in the ongoing negotiations. While we have authorized the Vice Chairman and their delegation to represent us in talks, the lack of seriousness displayed by the government is becoming increasingly evident. If this attitude persists, we will be left with no option but to withdraw from the negotiations entirely.”
“HNLC remains steadfast in its commitment to achieving lasting peace and political solution. We hope that the government will reassess its actions and work collaboratively towards a mutually agreeable solution,” he added.
On the other hand, the HNLC leader said that practically, none of the peace accords in Northeast India have materialized, except for the Mizo Accord.
“Even the instrument of accession, which your government forced upon our nation 76 years ago, has not been implemented in letter and spirit. Additionally, the standstill agreement signed between the Indian government and Federation of Khasi States was violated,” he said.
“Given these circumstances, can you expect us to trust your government repeatedly? If your government demonstrates a willingness to meet our political demand, which is similar to the Indian government’s public stance on the division of Jammu and Kashmir, then we would consider placing our trust in your administration.On August 5, 2019, the Indian parliament announced the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir. After 86 days, on the midnight of October 31, 2019, Kashmir was officially bifurcated. If your government shows the same determination in dividing Meghalaya and declaring Hynńiewtrep as a separate and equal state with a specific timeline, just as they did with Kashmir, then we would be more inclined to trust your governance.”
In such a scenario, Nongtraw said, “We would not require any financial assistance or what you refer to as “rehabilitation packages” for the HNLC. The repeated singling out of HNLC leaders through posted notices is deserving of strong criticism. Nonetheless, we want to make it clear that we do not fear oppressive laws or even death, and we will persist in our fight without compromising our principles. Fear has never been a part of our policy, and our political armed struggle holds a significant place in the history of our movement.”
Furthermore, it’s important to note the ban placed on the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in accordance with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967.The assertions made by Zakir Naik, who claims that Indian government officials met with him and granted safe passage while withdrawing all of his cases, are in stark contrast to this restriction.
It is important to note that Zakir Naik has been subject to travel prohibitions from several nations. HNLC, in contrast, has only been outlawed by the Indian government, and the MHA is in charge of the UAPA. This begs the important question, “Why isn’t the same courtesy extended to the leaders and members of the HNLC, who are actively engaged in a peace process with the government itself, if the Modi government can extend such courtesy to Zakir Naik?”