A call for transparency in the Naga political dialogue, questioning how the public can meaningfully understand or accept the Framework Agreement and Agreed Position when their full contents remain undisclosed.
Dr S. C. Jamir’s call for clarity on the Naga political issue deserves serious attention. Speaking at a consultative meeting organised by the Central Nagaland Tribes Council (CNTC), the former Nagaland chief minister and governor urged people to understand and accept the existing Framework Agreement and Agreed Position, arguing that the way forward should lie in addressing what has already been agreed rather than pursuing another agreement. He also called for wider consultation among tribal bodies and other stakeholders.
Dr Jamir brings long experience of public life to a debate that has shaped generations. His reflections on political realities, tribal divisions and the cost of prolonged uncertainty merit careful consideration. Yet a basic question remains: how can the public be asked to understand and accept agreements whose full contents are not publicly available?
The Framework Agreement was signed in 2015 between the Government of India and the NSCN (I-M). The Agreed Position followed in 2017 between the Government and the Working Committee of the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs). The Prime Minister’s Office said at the time that details and an execution plan would follow. In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs described the Framework Agreement as setting out broad parameters for a final settlement, while noting that a final accord had not yet been signed.
Since then, demands for disclosure have continued. Social and political leaders, tribal organisations, youth and student bodies, and members of the public have asked to see what was agreed in their name. That demand is not necessarily a call to reopen negotiations or reject the agreements. It is a request for enough information to understand the proposed settlement and its consequences.
If the Framework Agreement is the political foundation for a new relationship between the Nagas and the Government of India, should the Naga people not be able to learn what that relationship would involve? What powers, rights and responsibilities have been discussed? Which provisions have been mutually settled, and which remain unresolved? What would implementation mean for the people whose future is at stake?
The confidentiality surrounding the Framework Agreement’s details has been defended on the grounds that some competencies remain under negotiation and that premature disclosure could affect the process. If so, the parties should explain clearly what can be shared now, what cannot yet be disclosed, and why. After more than a decade, a general appeal for trust cannot replace a credible account of the process.
The responsibility for providing clarity rests with the negotiating parties—the Government of India and the Naga political groups involved. It is not enough to ask why one leader or one organisation has not released the details. The public is entitled to ask why the parties have not jointly explained the status of the agreements, what remains under discussion, and when people can expect a fuller account.
Nor can the public’s concern be dismissed as obstruction. A settlement that affects the political future of the Nagas must be understood by the people expected to live with it. Consultation cannot be meaningful if citizens are asked to endorse outcomes they have not been allowed to examine. Tribal hohos, civil society organisations, youth and student bodies, churches and elected representatives all have a role in building an informed public discussion.
Dr Jamir is right to call for clarity. But clarity cannot mean simply accepting an interpretation of agreements whose substance remains out of public view. If the existing agreements provide a workable basis for peace, their signatories should make the case openly and explain how they propose to implement them. If important questions remain unsettled, the public deserves an honest account of those too.
The Naga people are not spectators to this process. They are the people whose political future is being negotiated. So the question remains: if these agreements are meant to bring lasting peace and shape the future of the Naga people, why are the people still being asked to trust what they have not been allowed to know?
A. Anato Swu
Satakha Town
Writing from County Antrim, Northern Ireland