Barring entry of Mao folks to SAPO areas...Mao Council sets record straight
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, December 16 2022: Reacting to the prohibition imposed by the Southern Angami Public Organisation (SAPO) on Mao people in and around the 'southern Angami jurisdiction' which has been endorsed by the Southern Angami Youth Organisation (SAYO), the Mao Council (MC) has categorically stated that the Mao people cannot be prohibited from living their lives, least of all from taking up any activity within their own traditional land that is well between the bounds of law and of the 'Arbitration Undertaking' .

A statement issued by the MC reminded that after the Tenyimi People's Organisation (TPO) intervened in the present dispute over Dziiko and Koziirii (Kezoltsa for SAPO) in 2015-16, it was decreed that contending parties should refrain from going to the media to avoid paper war and ensure conducive environment.

However, SAPO and SAYO have been issuing several press statements misrepresenting the facts and situation of the dispute.

The Mao people in deference to the TPO stricture have refrained from going to the press but "our silence has been severely misconstrued as seen from postings in social media", the MC said.

"Therefore the Mao Council is constrained to issue this rejoinder to nullify the distortions and misinformation propagated in the media after having informed the office of the TPO of the necessity and our intention to set the record straight", read the statement issued by the MC.

In the SAPO press release it has been projected that the Mao & Maram people from Manipur had teamed up against the Southern Angamis of Nagaland.

This is blatantly misleading.

Maram Khullen is a separate claimant over Koziirii (Dziiko excluded) who came in much later and was admitted by TPO as a party to the dispute only in March 2016 and the dispute thereafter became an unprecedented triangular contest.

The SAPO press release also speaks about "undesirable aggression" by the Mao Council with the help of the Government of Manipur.

While the Mao Council cannot speak for the Government of Manipur (GOM), it is because of the SAPO/SAYO's unlawful and provocative activities in Koziirii/Dziiko area that the Manipur Government promulgated 144 CrPC, constructed police base camp and connecting road in Koziirii area, the MC asserted.

In March, 2021, a big team of TPO/BOA (Brotherhood Affirmation) and constituents tribes met the Manipur Chief Minister at Imphal.

He expressed his respect for the TPO/BOA and their initiative to settle the dispute peacefully but stated at the same time that it was his responsibility to secure the safety of the public and protect the forest and ecology of the area which had been ravaged by wildfire in December 2020.He also expressed concern about the presence of unlawful and provocative armed elements in the disputed area and that it was his responsibility to enforce the rule of law in the area within his jurisdiction, it reminded.

The MC then listed some of the provocative activities allegedly carried out by the SAPO.

The DC of Senapati district along with security forces, NDRF, SDRF and local leaders were physically confronted, abused, threatened by SAPO/SAYO when they went to assess the situation for prevention and control of damages caused by the wildfire in January, 2021 .

Security forces who were stationed there to control and monitor the wild fire were threatened.

Mao trekkers were abducted, detained and fined.

Carrying and firing of sophisticated arms in Koziirii and Mao Dziiko area and use of the rest house by armed persons who have been roaming within the jurisdiction of Manipur.

Total restriction on entry of trekkers and visitors to Dziiko valley from routes other than specified by SAPO/SAYO, although two-third of Dziiko valley falls within the jurisdiction of Manipur.

It may therefore be understood that the GOM has been carrying out its duties and responding to the situation as it should and the charge of Mao Council having brought the GOM into the land dispute does not have any basis, it said.

There were many reports and allegations made by SAPO against Mao Council for violations and so verification was carried out by the TPO/BOA.

Many of the allegations were found baseless and some issues were resolved with warnings and even payment of fine for violation of the "Arbitration Undertaking" where appropriate.

But the SAPO has not complied till date with TPO/BOA's directive for return of the fines extracted from seven innocent trekkers in December, 2020 nor has tendered any apology for their detention, abduction and handing them over to police custody as if they were criminals, it decried.

Illegal construction of a SAPO Rest house in 2000 at Chitekayi Ingo which is well within Mao traditional land transformed Koziirii (Kezoltsa in SAPO) and the thick forest adjacent to the Mao Dziiko area as an area of dispute.

"The SAPO press release does not mention Dziiko as an area of dispute and therefore it is understood that they are in agreement with our assertion of ownership over Mao Dziiko, where marker willow trees (Ozii sii) were planted by our ancestors and also where Emei Chikhe (Mao Cave) is located", the MC asserted.

The Mao traditional land including Mao Dziiko and Koziirii, disputed by SAPO and Maram Khullen (only Koziirii) lies in between the traditional land of SAPO situated in the North and the Maram Khullen traditional land situated in the South, it pointed out.

This time around, trekking and related tourism activities were organized as part of the Sangai Festival.

Trekking to Dziiko valley (Mao portion, which lies in Manipur State) was a part of the festival.

Trekking and clearing of existing footpath for the trekkers is not violative of TPO agreement for the obvious reason that the bounty of nature was for everyone to enjoy and to be blessed with.

But a public statement was issued by SAYO against trekking to Dziiko (Mao portion) with threat of consequences if the trekking was organized.

True to their words, they acted with intimidating gun firing in the vicinity, the MC decried.

The TPO/BOA is the forum to place any report of violation of the Arbitration Undertaking or any act that goes against the spirit of the arbitration process.

It is not for a disputing party to resort to extreme, non-traditional and unacceptable means such as imposing bans over perceived violations by another party.

After the TPO issued a notification on December 4 whereby a joint meeting of TPO/BOA was convened on December 19, 2022, the SAPO issued a press release on December 7 announcing their resolution to ban Mao people from entering and crossing SAPO area.

This blatant opposition and disregard to the TPO notification cannot be anything but in the words of the SAPO a "direct insult, humiliation and challenge to the BOA of the TPO court", the MC remarked.

The overbearing attitude and the intent to ride roughshod over the TPO/BOA and its constituent units is being blatantly demonstrated.

The Mao people do not live in isolation and are presently under the State of Manipur and "we have our own issues of injustice and suppression", it said.

Yet the Mao people still have the right to roam freely, forage and live off the land in their own traditional land without being threatened, abused and detained by unlawful armed elements roaming the Dziiko and Koziirii area, the MC asserted.

It then asked with whom should the Mao people promote festivals, tourism and development in their area if not with the Manipur Government which has the mandatory responsibility to do so.

"Will the Assam Government, Nagaland Government or Arunachal Government come forward with such responsibilities?", the MC asked.

As already communicated to the TPO, given the atmosphere that has been severely vitiated by the SAPO statement and the ongoing ban on Mao people, the venue for the joint meetings scheduled on 18th and 19th December at Kohima should be changed to a neutral venue which will secure a conducive environment and where tribe delegates would not be subjected to the ignominy of identification, permission and duress of the SAPO while travelling to attend the meeting.

If the request for shifting to a neutral venue as strongly called for by the prevailing situation is refused, the Mao Council and its 'Arbitrators' will be compelled to abstain from the scheduled meetings, it added.

Comment