NSCN (Unification) questions Forest Department’s handling of wildlife cases

Dimapur, October 13 (MExN): The GPRN/NSCN (Unification) has questioned the Nagaland Forest Department’s handling of wildlife-related cases, alleging harassment of citizens and seeking greater transparency over its authority on traditionally owned lands.In a press statement issued on October 13, Kilonser of Kilo (Home) Affairs Inno Huvito Yepthomi expressed concern over the alleged summoning, threatening and mental harassment of Naga citizens in the name of wildlife protection.The organisation stated that it did not ordinarily concern itself with the internal administrative affairs of the Nagaland Government but said intervention was necessary when a department’s actions appeared to “encroach upon the land, property and inherent rights of the Naga people.” It added that silence in such circumstances was neither “appropriate nor acceptable.”The organisation cited the case of Vezheto Hesuh, which it said had intensified public concern over the department’s approach to wildlife-related matters and asserted that “the mere posting of photograph cannot, in itself, establish that a person has engaged in illegal hunting, poaching, trafficking or any other prohibited activity.”The GPRN/NSCN (Unification) also raised concerns over human-elephant conflict, claiming that wild elephants entering Nagaland from neighbouring Assam had damaged plantations, agricultural produce and private property, with reports of fatalities. It stated that a herd was roaming in and around Hovishe village under Niuland, causing further damage, and called for preventive measures, timely intervention and appropriate relief for affected families.The statement urged 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 sought disclosure of relevant notifications, boundaries, ownership details and applicable laws governing reserved forests, protected forests and wildlife sanctuaries.Citing departmental figures, the organisation stated that Nagaland had approximately 8,629.30 sq km of recorded forest area, of which 7,621.07 sq km, or 88.30%, was classified as privately or community-owned, while 1,008.23 sq km, or 11.70%, was state-owned.It argued that forest cover or wildlife habitat on privately owned land did not, by itself, establish government ownership, and called for a distinction between ownership and regulatory jurisdiction.The statement also pointed out that the 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 Nagaland Legislative Assembly so decides by resolution.However, the organisation maintained that the constitutional provision was not a substitute for the political rights and aspirations of the Naga people or an honourable and permanent settlement of the Indo-Naga political issue. It asserted that Naga customary ownership was rooted in historical rights and traditions and should not be determined by administrative convenience.Clarifying its position, the organisation said it did not oppose wildlife protection or biodiversity conservation but maintained that conservation must respect human life, customary land ownership and property rights. While acknowledging that authorities could act where credible evidence established offences within duly notified protected areas, it opposed “arbitrary summons, intimidation or arrests.”It urged the Forest Department to verify allegations, exercise restraint, address human-elephant conflict, assist affected families and ensure enforcement was grounded in evidence and applicable law.