NSCN-IM accuses ZUF (J) of ceasefire violations, illegal tax collection along NH-37

The NSCN-IM, through its Office of the Central Administrative Officer (CAO), Zeilad, Zeliangrong Region, has accused the Zeliangrong United Front (ZUF-J) of violating the terms of its Ceasefire/Cessation of Operations (CoO) agreement with the Government of India by allegedly carrying out attacks, collecting illegal taxes, and harassing commuters along National Highway-37.

In a statement, the NSCN-IM alleged that Indian security forces transported ZUF (J) cadres from Khoupum to Old Agro Mile at Kaiphundai Kuki village on March 20, 2026. It claimed the cadres attacked an NSCN-IM outpost at Kaiphundai the following day and failed to return to their designated camp at Mount Ararat as required under the CoO agreement.

The outfit further alleged that ZUF (J) cadres collected illegal taxes in the name of the NSCN-IM along NH-37 and intimidated motorists. It claimed repeated appeals to the group to stop such activities went unheeded. According to the statement, NSCN cadres fired blank warning shots at Kaiphundai on June 26 after exercising restraint for an extended period to prevent further bloodshed.

The NSCN-IM also alleged that ZUF (J) operates as a proxy of the Government of India to undermine the Naga political movement and claimed the group had received government support. It further accused ZUF (J) of misleading the Zeliangrong community through its demand for a “Zeliangrong Homeland.”

Calling for unity among Naga organisations, the NSCN-IM urged all Naga groups in the Zeilad and Zeliangrong region to endorse the Framework Agreement signed with the Government of India on August 3, 2015.
Reaffirming its commitment to reconciliation, the outfit said the Naga political issue could be resolved through the principle of “One Talk, One Agreement.”

Related posts

Crores spent, public left waiting: Smart City assets remain idle across Imphal

CoTU sets 48 hours ultimatum over Highway blockades to government

PPAM reacts to CoTU ultimatum, questions ‘selective’ demand for free movement