The four lawyers include eminent advocate, writer and human rights’ activist Nandita Haksar, senior lawyer Timikha Koza, Sebastian Hongray and Edward Belho.
According to the study, the fact that there was no ceasefire between the NSCN (IM) and the NSCN (K) was being used by the Indian state to empower the armed forces and to undermine the ceasefire monitoring mechanism.
“Till there was such an ceasefire it would be difficult to argue that the SOPs be repealed”, the study points out. The SOPs must be made public and should not be in operation without being discussed in the state assembly as they amount to giving wide powers to the armed forces over and above even those in the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. Pointing out that these SOPs were made without consulting the CFMG, the study concluded they violated the spirit of the ceasefire monitoring mechanism.
It was also mentioned that the guidelines for SOPs which vested wide powers to the armed forces, were sent to Nagaland when the state did not have a popularly elected government but was under Governor’s Rule. The fact-finding team of lawyers termed it as shocking that the rules having an impact on civil administration and citizens, were marked ‘secret’.
The team expressed its concern to the chairman of the Ceasefire Monitoring Group (CFMG) when they called on him on March 10, 2009.
The fact-finding team informed to have met district-level authorities including the DCs and police of Kohima and Dimapur districts and discussed the SOPs. One DC reportedly expressed his concern about involving the NGOs because many times “they got injured” and that unarmed civilians could not be used like human shields between two armed groups.
The DC felt it was the job of the Assam Rifles to prevent inter-factional clashes. The study also points out that the investigation into the incident in Pfutsero and Shirui showed the strengths and weaknesses of the functioning of the ceasefire monitoring mechanism.
According to the Fact Finding Team its basic strength lay in the fact that where the Chairman could intervene he had been able to diffuse the situation and prevented the situation from getting out of control.
It pointed out that the Chairman could have diffused the situation even in Shirui and thereby preventing anguish to the villagers and also preventing the communalizing of the ceasefire issue. “We cannot understand how it was that the Home Ministry could have told the Chairman CFMG that he had no jurisdiction in Manipur even though there are four approved NSCN camps within the State”, the study states.
Further the Fact Finding Team questioned as to why the Home and Defence Ministry deny the fact that the NSCN camp at Shirui had been established with the approval of the CFMG after consultation with the armed forces at the highest level. “Why are the records of the CFMG not made available to the present Chairman of the CFMG and why did the Home Ministry remain silent on the permission given”? it went on to question while also terming it as ‘mystifying’ that the Defence Ministry should deny the existence of another camp at Senapati.
“The fact that Assam Rifles clearly broke the ceasefire ground rules in both cases have been proved beyond doubt yet they are not accountable to any civilian authority”, the study points out. It may be mentioned here that the Fact Finding Team came out with a five point recommendation. This include making the ceasefire monitoring mechanism more transparent; officially extending the ceasefire to Manipur; declaring ceasefire between the different underground groups and devising better ways for effective enforcement of the ceasefire ground rules.