DIMAPUR, OCT 13 (NPN): GPRN/NSCN (Unification) has expressed concern over alleged harassment of Naga citizens by the Forest department, in wildlife-related cases and called for greater transparency in enforcement, protection of customary land rights and urgent measures to address human-elephant conflict.
In a statement kilonser ministry of kilo (Home) affairs, Huvito Yepthomi, said reports of citizens being summoned, threatened and subjected to mental harassment in the name of wildlife protection had raised questions about the department’s conduct and its understanding of Naga customary rights.
The group said it did not ordinarily interfere in the internal administrative affairs of the state government but maintained that it could not remain silent when departmental actions allegedly encroached upon the land, property and inherent rights of the Naga people.
It also expressed concern over wild elephants reportedly entering Nagaland from neighbouring Assam and causing extensive damage to plantations, agricultural produce and private property, besides alleged loss of human lives in elephant-related incidents. The statement specifically referred to a herd of wild elephants reportedly roaming in and around Hovishe village under Niuland, causing damage to plantations and other properties.
The group questioned the department’s response to such incidents and called for effective preventive measures, timely intervention in wildlife emergencies and appropriate relief for affected families.
It further expressed concern over the reported summoning and alleged harassment of citizens for posting photographs with animals on social media.
Referring to the case of Vezhoto Hesuh, the organisation said the department should distinguish innocent conduct from offences, adding that photographs alone could not establish involvement in illegal hunting, poaching or trafficking.
GPRN/NSCN (Unification) called upon the state government to clarify the legal basis of the Forest Department’s authority over lands traditionally owned by individuals, clans, villages and communities. It demanded disclosure of relevant notifications, boundaries, ownership particulars and applicable laws relating to reserved forests, protected forests and wildlife sanctuaries.
Citing departmental figures, the statement said Nagaland had approximately 8,629.30 sq. km. of recorded forest area, of which 7,621.07 sq. km. (88.30%) was classified as privately or community-owned and 1,008.23 sq. km. (11.70%) as state-owned. It stressed that forest cover or wildlife habitat on privately owned land did not, by itself, establish government ownership of the land.
The group also referred to Article 371A(1)(a)(iv) of the Constitution, which provides that Acts of Parliament concerning the ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall not apply to Nagaland unless the state Legislative Assembly so decides by resolution. It said customary ownership was rooted in the historical rights and traditions of the Naga people and should not be treated as a matter of administrative convenience.
Clarifying its position, the group said it did not oppose wildlife conservation, biodiversity protection or the lawful protection of endangered species. However, it maintained that conservation measures must also safeguard human life, customary land ownership and property rights.
It said the competent authority could act in accordance with applicable laws where credible evidence established an offence within duly notified forest areas or wildlife sanctuaries, but cautioned against arbitrary summons, intimidation or arrest.
The group urged the Forest department to exercise caution in handling alleged offences, address human-elephant conflict, assist affected families and ensure that enforcement was based on evidence and applicable law. It said wildlife must be protected without undermining the rights of the Naga people.
The post GPRN/NSCN (U) questions wildlife case handling first appeared on Nagaland Post.