Ntangki never topic of discussion in Indo-Naga political talks: NSCN (IM) | MorungExpress

• Refutes SCAN’s “misleading” claim of being unfortunate
• Said that Ntangki National Park will remain protected and preserved

Dimapur, October 25 (MExN): NSCN (IM) today said it was ‘unfortunate’ that the Elderly People’s Association of Nagaland (SCAN) had targeted NSCN ‘unfairly with its misleading statement’ that it occupied Ntangki National Park (PN ) and placed it “under his total control”. .”

Given the scale of the problem, SCAN should have acted more responsibly instead of “highly inflammatory allegations”, he said.

As a result, among others, the NSCN (IM), pointed out that Ntangki has never been a subject of “discussion during Indo-Naga politics” and has nothing to do with Naga political settlement.

“Whether there is a solution or not, it will remain protected and be preserved as Naga national property,” said a rejoinder released by the MIP, NSCN/GPRN.

The NSCN (IM) reply is significant because four “landowner villages” in Hebron Camp and Ntangki National Park – Old Jalukie, Jalukiekam, Beisumpui and Beisumpuikam on October 23 also clarified that Hebron Camp n was “not under the jurisdiction of the Ntangki National Park.”

Meanwhile, in the Reply, the NSCN(IM) further asserted that on “no occasion has the NSCN interfered with or harassed the Forestry Department in the performance of its duties”

“The NSCN, as a responsible organization, will never overstep its role of stooping so low as to be a source of nuisance to the Forestry Department and therefore the matter of the Forestry Department having to seek permission from the NSCN should never land,” he said, calling the “fabricated” statement highly inappropriate.

Instead of controlling, if countermeasures had not been taken by the NSCN (IM), the park “could have been a different story today”, he claimed.

The critical need to protect the Ntangki Forest and Wildlife was raised at the NSCN National Assembly, Gilgal Camp, in 1996 and it was decided to protect and preserve the Ntangki Forest as a reserved forest to wildlife, he informed.

He further pointed out that it is recorded that Ntangki belongs to the village of former Bisumpui with defined boundaries.

Significantly, Hebron lies outside the boundaries of Ntangki and originally belongs to the village of Old Jalukie. Jalukiekam village was created with the permission of Old Jalukie village and is a recognized village with specific boundaries, NSCN (IM) said.

The Hebron camp is within the jurisdiction of Jalukiekam village and outside the boundaries of Ntangki and not as SCAN recklessly claims, he added.

He further pointed out that the authorities of Jalukiekam village had allowed the NSCN (IM) to establish its Council Headquarters (CHQ), Hebron Camp, on the condition that “the land be returned to the owner of Jalukiekam village in case the NSCN leaves the premises,” he added.

NSCN(IM) also recalled that it was during SC Chief Minister Jamir’s tenure that Hebron was designated as the “designated ceasefire camp and he must be well aware that the camp does not has nothing to do with Ntangki National Park”.

The Nagaland Forest Department claimed to have acquired the land of the current Hebron camp from a Kachari who had paid land taxes to the old village of Jalukie, but how can a tenant sell the land?, he asked.

The Forest/Hebron settlement was never given to the Forestry Department by its landowner Jalukiekam or Old Jalukie Village, he claimed.

Ntangki’s park manager, in an interview recently, also said there was no “indication that the NSCN had encroached” on the park, he pointed out.

In this regard, NSCN(IM) called it “disheartening” that SCAN raised a “big tone against something that doesn’t exist at all.”

Knowledgeable people should be able to read between the lines how SCAN’s irresponsible statements are made deliberately to cause public outcry against NSCN and expose its ulterior motives, he argued.

The NSCN(IM) also said that a former candidate for election to the State Assembly as spokesman has “nullified” SCAN’s claim to be a “non-political organization” and the considered unhappy.

Jessica C. Bell