# Chakhesang Youths March in Nagaland's Phek Demanding Wildlife Case Withdrawal and Return of Seized Bird

> Thousands of Chakhesang youths protested in Phek district demanding the drop of charges against Vezhoto Hesuh, the return of a confiscated Great Barbet, and a probe into alleged extortion by wildlife officials.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Nagaland · **Published:** 2026-09-29 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/nagaland/chakhesang-youths-march-in-nagaland-s-phek-demanding-wildlife-case-withdrawal-and-return-of-seized-bird-40055 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Nagaland, Phek, Chakhesang, Great Barbet, Wildlife Protection, Neiphiu Rio, Article 371A

Massive public resentment surfaced in the Phek district of Nagaland as thousands of youths dressed in traditional attires marched through the streets to register a strong protest against the state wildlife authorities. Led by the Central Chakhesang Youth Organisation, the demonstration demanded the immediate withdrawal of a wildlife case filed against Vezhoto Hesuh, the safe return of a confiscated Great Barbet bird, and an independent inquiry into allegations of financial extortion against enforcement personnel. The rally commenced at Rukizu Junction and culminated at the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Pfutsero, where the leadership formally presented their grievances.

## The Dispute Triggered by Online Media Posts
The controversy originated from actions taken on September 11, when the Wildlife Crime Control Unit under the Wildlife Division in Dimapur summoned Vezhoto Hesuh regarding content uploaded to his social media profiles. According to details shared by the youth organisation, the material in question comprised a video clip of Hesuh offering a sweet to a monkey in Assam, footage showing a bird inside a cage, and a photograph featuring a bird resting on his shoulder. The organisation maintained that Hesuh neither captured nor possessed these animals, arguing that none of the shared footage depicted hunting, cruelty, confinement, or any deliberate harm toward wildlife.

## Allegations of Financial Extortion and Demand for Inquiry
During the public demonstration, severe allegations of official misconduct were placed at the forefront. The Central Chakhesang Youth Organisation alleged that personnel demanded a sum of Rs 1 lakh to secure the release of Hesuh without charges. When Hesuh declined to pay this amount, an official wildlife violation case was registered against him. Outraged by this reported conduct, the demonstrating leadership submitted a formal memorandum addressed to Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio, seeking an impartial investigation into the bribery allegations and the immediate dismissal of the case against the youth.

## Seizure of Porba Village's Great Barbet Stirs Outrage
Another major trigger behind the mass mobilization was the confiscation of a Great Barbet from Porba village on September 14. Youth representatives highlighted that the bird had been under the attentive care of a young village boy for six to seven years, forming a strong emotional bond. The sudden removal of the bird caused immense distress to the child and led to widespread concern across the local community. The organisation urged wildlife authorities to exercise sensitivity toward local traditions and social realities rather than approaching customary coexistence with rigid administrative detachment.

## Constitutional Safeguards Under Article 371A and Seven-Day Deadline
Invoking the constitutional framework governing Nagaland, the demonstrators highlighted Article 371A, asserting that the state's distinct protections and customary heritage must be duly respected while administering central statutes in areas covered by the clause. Additional Deputy Commissioner Mhalo Humtsoe received the memorandum and assured the assembly that the representations would be forwarded to the Chief Minister's Office without delay. Meanwhile, the Central Chakhesang Youth Organisation served a strict seven-day deadline to both the state government and the Department of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. The body warned that failure to withdraw the case, return the seized Great Barbet, and initiate an independent probe into the financial extortion charges within this timeframe would trigger intensified community agitation.

## What this means for you
This development directly impacts the balance between indigenous customary practices and strict environmental enforcement across tribal regions.

- **Across India:** The incident brings renewed scrutiny to how social media clips are interpreted by enforcement teams under central wildlife laws. It establishes an important debate regarding innocent interactions versus deliberate poaching or captivity offenses.
- **In Nagaland:** The state faces potential escalations in civil demonstrations if the administration fails to act within the seven-day timeframe. Forest authorities may be forced to review their field procedures and engagement protocols with local villagers.
- **For tribal communities:** Heightened awareness around Article 371A protections will reinforce community vigilance over administrative interventions. Villagers will demand greater safeguards for harmless, longstanding domestic relationships with local birds or animals.
- **For everyday citizens:** Individuals will need to exercise caution when posting casual wildlife videos or photographs on digital platforms. It also underscores the importance of reporting administrative extortion and demanding transparent institutional inquiries.

## Why this happened
The public outcry was triggered by an aggressive wildlife enforcement action against a youth, the abrupt seizure of a household bird, and serious allegations of financial bribery against officials.

- **Digital content scrutiny:** The Wildlife Crime Control Unit summoned the youth over online media clips without first verifying ownership or identifying any genuine animal cruelty.
- **Bribery allegations:** Authorities reportedly demanded Rs 1 lakh to release the youth, proceeding with a formal case only after he refused the monetary payment.
- **Confiscation of a long-term pet:** The seizure of a Great Barbet cared for by a village child for six to seven years triggered widespread grief and resentment among residents.
- **Neglect of constitutional provisions:** The administration overlooked the unique socio-cultural safeguards guaranteed to Nagaland under Article 371A while applying central wildlife statutes.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. Why did Chakhesang youths protest in Phek district?
They marched to demand the withdrawal of a wildlife case against Vezhoto Hesuh, the return of a seized Great Barbet, and an independent bribery probe.

### 2. Why was Vezhoto Hesuh summoned by wildlife authorities?
He was summoned on September 11 over social media posts showing him feeding a monkey and posing alongside birds.

### 3. What specific allegation was made against wildlife officials?
The youth organisation alleged that officials demanded Rs 1 lakh for Hesuh's release and registered a case after he refused to pay.

### 4. What is the background of the confiscated Great Barbet bird?
The bird was seized on September 14 from Porba village, where it had been nurtured by a young boy for six to seven years.

### 5. What deadline has the Central Chakhesang Youth Organisation set?
The organisation has served a seven-day deadline to the Nagaland government and forest department before deciding on further action.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._