|Rediff India Abroad Home | All the sections|
ULFA opposes 'greater Nagalim'
K Anurag in Guwahati | December 26, 2006 09:21 IST
Even as the Naga rebel leader, the general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland - Isak-Muivah, Thuingaleng Muivah is scheduled to visit Nagaland during the New Year, the banned United Liberation Front of Asom on Monday reiterated its opposition to the Naga group's demand for a 'greater Nagalim'.
In a statement issued on the internet, chairman of ULFA, Arabinda Rajkhowa, decried 'cosmetic protests' registered by political parties of Assam against 'greater Nagalim', which that proposes to include large parts of eight districts of Assam.
The NSCN-IM, which is engaged in a peace process with the government of India, in its charter of demands has a major clause called constitution of a 'greater Nagalim'.
This would be a single administrative block for Naga people living in present states of Nagaland, neighbouring Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh.
The proposed map of 'greater Nagalim' includes many parts of the three neighbouring states. All these states have registered their protest against the proposal, though protests are more audible in Manipur than in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
The ULFA chairman also criticised the government of Assam and the government in New Delhi for overlooking Nagaland's bid to encroach upon Assam territory.
The militant group alleged that the Nagaland government had so far set up four administrative sub-divisions � Kohobotu, Nuland, Uriamghat and Hukai � within 'Assam territory'.
The case on the decades-old boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland is now pending in the Supreme Court after Assam government had moved a petition few years back seeking the intervention of the court after Nagaland government had rejected recommendations of a boundary committee set up by the central government.
The Nagaland government prefers an out of court settlement to the boundary disputes while Assam government has made it clear that it would abide by what the Supreme Court has to say about it.