Imphal, June 14: Hitting back on NSCN (IM), the proscribed UNLF has categorically stated that selfrighteousness of the NSCN (IM) in boasting about "...magnanimity in helping out the various revolutionary groups of the region" and the assertion that "fighting with the common enemy unitedly does not necessarily mean fighting for a common goal" is a point for further debate so that concerned peoples can make their own judgment.

In a statement, senior publicity secretary of UNLF Kh Yoiheiba said that for UNLF, guided by the belief in the composite interdependent unity of the Indian occupied Region, it has been its consistent revolutionary effort to develop fraternal relationship with all the revolutionary struggles in the region for unity against the common enemy.

So, believing in the fraternal interdependent coexistence of all the peoples in the region, UNLF tried to develop fraternal relationship with the Naga struggle from the time of undivided NNC, and also with the Mizo National Front then leading the Mizo freedom struggle, the statement said, adding it was all in the larger interest of searching for regional unity against the common enemy.

In this effort, the statement went on to say, UNLF had to swallow the disdain and condescending attitude towards 'Manipur of having compromised its sovereignty with India' not knowing fully well the history of forcible annexation of Manipur by India in 1949.On the other hand, UNLF was surprised, rather disappointed, to discover later that MNF and NNC in the 1970s even when they were receiving external help and assistance and actively fighting against the same enemy for the same goal of independence, did not even discuss common interests.

Stating that an unbiased analysis of this attitude would reveal their ethno-exclusive outlook subjectively separated from the common context, UNLF maintained that though initially a necessary stage in asserting ethnic identities, this ethno-exclusive ideology more or less outlived its historical purpose when other struggles, that also mostly inspired by theirs, began to emerge in almost all parts of the region.

That marked the beginning of a new historical process necessitating the transformation of ethno-exclusive ideologies into inclusive revolutionary struggles so as to consciously develop revolutionary unity of the region beyond ethnic lines.

Regional unity on the basis of a minimum common goal is a prerequisite condition for 'fighting unitedly' against the common enemy.

This minimum common goal should be the basis for regional unity without which fighting unitedly against the common enemy is unthinkable, UNLF pointed out.

Posing what should be the minimum common goal for fighting unitedly against India, UNLF said that for those aspiring to be free from colonial occupation, the minimum common goal should logically be to overthrow colonial rule/occupation from the Region.

Without this common goal it is simply indulgence in absurd illusions to think about fighting unitedly.

Or, if it is a deliberate policy of using, rather abusing a united front for one's exclusive goal, then it is insincere opportunistic politics forbidden by revolutionary culture.

Thus, the reality of the Region � the composite interdependent unity and confronting a common external enemy � demands of the various revolutionary organisations to fight united against the common enemy for a comprehensive solution, the statement said, adding that UNLF is firmly convinced that any individual effort, ignoring the reality of the region, to fight/bargain/negotiate independence with India separately, is doomed to end in failure.

This has been clearly proved by fifty years of armed struggle.

Therefore, it is of primary importance to build regional unity on the basis of a common understanding of the region's historical process, putting in place 'unique histories' as all histories are unique in their own ways.

Therefore, the NSCN (IM) policy statement that "fighting with the common enemy unitedly does not necessarily mean fighting for a common goal" is self-contradictory and does not hold water in the regional context, the UNLF asserted, adding that it reflects confusion between policy and goal.

OR, was NSCN (IM) using the regional united front as a bargaining factor to attain the exclusive goal of 'Nagalim'? , it questioned.

Whatever the goal, it is this self-confessed contradiction between policy and goal of the NSCN (IM) that is primarily responsible for the present disarray in the region's liberation struggles and also within the NSCN (IM), UNLF said.