Aizawl: Two associations of former Mizo National Front (MNF) fighters on Saturday strongly criticised Chief Minister Lalduhoma over his recent remarks on the 1986 Mizoram Peace Accord and Inner Line Permit (ILP), alleging that he had belittled an agreement achieved after the sacrifice of numerous lives.
Vanlalbia, chairman of the Coordination Committee on Ex-Mizo National Army (MNA) and Peace Accord MNF Returnees Association (PAMRA), said the peace accord had ushered in peace in Mizoram and that its benefits were being enjoyed by the people.
He accused Lalduhoma of repeatedly making statements that allegedly undermined the importance of the Mizoram Peace Accord.
Vanlalbia was referring to remarks allegedly made by Lalduhoma during his address to students at Mizoram Law College on July 31, when he said the commonly used term “Mizoram Accord” is technically inaccurate because the agreement was signed between the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and a political organisation, the MNF, in Mizoram, rather than between the Government of India and the state of Mizoram.
Lalduhoma had further allegedly said that the continuation of the ILP ultimately rests with the Centre, which has the authority to revoke the system if it chooses, and cautioned that its implementation should be carried out with “reasonable restraint” towards outsiders.
“If the Chief Minister cannot properly understand or utilise the Peace Accord, and cannot safeguard it, he should hand over the power he currently holds to others,” Vanlalbia told a news conference in Aizawl.
According to Vanlalbia, the Chief Minister referred to the Mizoram Peace Accord, formally known as the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), as a “Memorandum of Agreement” and “Memorandum of Understanding”, which he described as factually incorrect.
Vanlalbia alleged that Lalduhoma had said the accord was not signed between the Government of Mizoram and the Government of India, but between the MNF and the Government of India, and therefore was not an agreement between Mizoram and India.
Rejecting Lalduhoma’s claims, Vanlalbia asserted that the document bears the signatures of Laldenga, representing the MNF; K.D. Pradhan, then Home Secretary representing the Union Government; and Lalkhama, Chief Secretary representing the Mizoram government.
The associations also took exception to the Chief Minister’s reported remarks concerning the ILP, which they said portrayed the system as something that could be removed by the Central government at its discretion.
Vanlalbia cited Clause 8 of the Mizoram Peace Accord, which he said clearly states that the ILP regulations currently in force in Mizoram cannot be altered or withdrawn without consultation with the state government.
Lalduhoma had earlier said that the Peace Accord does not mandate obtaining the state government’s consent, although the Centre is required to consult the state government before making changes to the ILP system.
Vanlalbia said that Lalduhoma, as Chief Minister, was expected to stand firmly before the people on issues concerning the protection of Mizoram and its people.
He expressed concern over remarks that, according to him, suggested that the Centre could remove an important constitutional and administrative safeguard protecting the state’s interests even without external pressure.
The former rebel associations’ leader also alleged that Lalduhoma had previously made similar comments on the ILP at a function held at the ruling Zoram People’s Movement (ZPM) office in Aizawl.
Representatives of the former MNA and PAMRA said they were deeply hurt by what they described as repeated attempts to undermine or downplay safeguards secured through the sacrifice of lives and blood during the struggle for Mizoram’s protection.
They further accused the Chief Minister of being overly accommodating towards the Central government and said they did not consider a person who could not properly utilise or safeguard the Peace Accord fit to continue holding the office of Chief Minister.