Aizawl: Mizo National Front (MNF) president Zoramthanga on Wednesday demanded that Chief Minister Lalduhoma apologise to the people of Mizoram and withdraw remarks he made on the Inner Line Permit (ILP) and the 1986 Mizoram Peace Accord, alleging that the Chief Minister had distorted historical facts and undermined the state’s constitutional safeguards.
Speaking to mediapersons, Zoramthanga said Lalduhoma’s address to students at Government Mizoram Law College on July 31 contained statements concerning Mizoram’s constitutional safeguards and the identity of the Mizo people that were factually incorrect and had the potential to mislead the younger generation.
Referring to the Chief Minister’s speech, Zoramthanga said Lalduhoma had stated that the ILP could be removed if the Central Government so desired and had described the Mizoram Peace Accord as an agreement between the Union Home Ministry and the MNF.
He said that while political disagreements are natural in a democracy, leaders are expected to stand firm on matters concerning the protection of the state’s constitutional safeguards and the interests of the Mizo people. According to him, it was inappropriate for a Chief Minister to repeatedly suggest that the ILP could simply be abolished by the Centre.
Zoramthanga maintained that the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873, under which the ILP is implemented, has served as an important safeguard protecting the Mizo people from demographic and cultural erosion since the colonial period. He further said the ILP received stronger legal protection through the 1986 Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), which, according to him, provides that the regulation cannot be amended or repealed without the consent of the Government of Mizoram.
He argued that Lalduhoma’s repeated assertion that the Centre could abolish the ILP amounted to what he described as a “message of surrender”, adding that such remarks created the impression that the state government would not oppose any such move.
The former Chief Minister also accused Lalduhoma of inaccurately referring to the 1986 agreement during his address. He said the Chief Minister referred to it as a “Memorandum of Agreement” and later as a “Memorandum of Understanding”, whereas its official title is the Memorandum of Settlement.
He further claimed that Lalduhoma omitted the name of former Chief Secretary Lalkhama, who signed the agreement on behalf of the Government of Mizoram and is still alive. Zoramthanga said such factual errors were unacceptable, particularly from someone who has often projected himself as having played a significant role in the peace process.
Rejecting Lalduhoma’s description of the accord as merely an agreement between the Home Ministry and the MNF, Zoramthanga said the settlement was signed on behalf of the Government of India by then Union Home Secretary R.D. Pradhan, on behalf of the Government of Mizoram by then Chief Secretary Lalkhama with the approval of the then Chief Minister Lal Thanhawla, and on behalf of the MNF by its president Laldenga following sustained appeals from churches, civil society organisations and political parties. He added that the agreement was subsequently implemented through the 53rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1986, which inserted Article 371G into the Constitution, providing constitutional protection to Mizoram’s special provisions.
Zoramthanga also questioned Lalduhoma’s changing positions on the Peace Accord over the years. He alleged that Lalduhoma had earlier criticised the accord while serving as president of the Mizo National Union (MNU), describing it as an unsatisfactory settlement, but later claimed during his tenure as president of the Zoram Nationalist Party (ZNP) that he had been closely involved in drafting it. According to Zoramthanga, the Chief Minister was now attempting to downplay the significance of the accord by portraying it as an agreement only between the Home Ministry and the MNF.
He further said that no proposal had been made by the Central Government to repeal or amend the ILP and questioned why the Chief Minister continued to publicly suggest that the state’s principal protective mechanism could be removed at the Centre’s discretion.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
Zoramthanga demanded that Lalduhoma publicly apologise to the people of Mizoram and withdraw his remarks before August 15, 2026. He warned that if the Chief Minister failed to do so, the MNF would initiate further action.
The controversy stems from Lalduhoma’s address at Government Mizoram Law College on July 31, where he said that although the ILP is an important safeguard for Mizoram, it could be repealed if the Central Government chose to do so. He also remarked that what is commonly referred to as the Mizoram Peace Accord was formally an agreement involving the Government of India and the MNF, comments that have since drawn criticism from the opposition.
Also Read | How a protest exposed gender prejudice beneath Mizoram’s progressive image