An opinion on the Naga political issue, highlighting the need for unity among Naga national groups, mutual understanding, and constructive dialogue before demanding an early solution.
“Apolitical, with no strings attached to any political party; nobody’s brainchild; and opposed to no political party, government, parliamentarian, politician, or Naga national worker.”
This was the position asserted by the Naga Youth Movement during its press briefing, projecting itself as independent, non-partisan, and free from external influence. However, declarations alone do not establish a movement’s true character. Its statements and demands bear a striking resemblance to those of the so-called ‘Strange Bedfellows’ forum, which has persistently demanded an early solution to the Naga political problem. This raises a fundamental question: can an early solution be achieved without first addressing the divisions within the Naga national movement?
The Ground Reality
The Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position signed between the Government of India (GoI) and the respective Naga negotiating groups have yet to produce a universally accepted settlement. Concerns persist over whether the core Naga aspirations, particularly sovereignty and the integration of all Naga-inhabited areas, have been adequately addressed. Meanwhile, other Naga national groups remain outside these agreements or hold differing positions.
If reports of as many as 37 Naga national factions are accurate, the magnitude of this fragmentation should concern every right-thinking Naga. How can we expect a comprehensive and lasting settlement when the people seeking it remain divided? The Government of India has repeatedly maintained that there can be only one solution to the Naga political problem. Whatever the interpretation of this position, achieving a common settlement requires a serious effort to reconcile differences among the various Naga national groups.
Is the Ball Really in New Delhi’s Court?
The responsibility for resolving the Naga political problem cannot rest solely with New Delhi. While the Government of India and the negotiating parties must fulfill their respective responsibilities, the Nagas must also acknowledge their own role in the prolonged delay. We cannot continue blaming successive governments while overlooking the divisions within our own movement.
This does not diminish the value of the Framework Agreement or the Agreed Position, nor does it dismiss the aspirations of those who support them. Rather, it recognises that a settlement aspiring to be comprehensive and acceptable to the Naga people must seriously address the differences that continue to divide them.
The time has therefore come to reconsider our priorities. Instead of repeatedly demanding an early solution, our foremost task should be to bring the various Naga national groups closer together, establish a common understanding of our fundamental aspirations, and approach the Government of India with a united and credible political position.
Unity does not mean suppressing differences, imposing one group’s position on another, or demanding unconditional surrender. It requires dialogue, mutual respect, accommodation, and a willingness to place the larger Naga interest above factional considerations. Without such efforts, demands for an immediate settlement risk putting the cart before the horse.
Declarations versus Conduct
Another aspect of the Naga Youth Movement that deserves scrutiny is its reported language towards those who disagree with or oppose its activities. While claiming to be independent and non-partisan, the movement has reportedly used aggressive and intimidating words, warning dissenters not to interfere and suggesting that those who fail to understand its position should remain silent and stay at home, as a time would come when the movement itself would disturb them.
Such remarks are deeply troubling. Any movement seeking public support must respect criticism and disagreement. The right to organise does not justify intimidation. A movement claiming to represent Naga youth should demonstrate restraint, respect differing opinions, and engage in constructive dialogue. Intimidation only risks undermining public confidence in its cause.
Political credibility cannot be established merely through declarations of independence or non-partisanship; it must be demonstrated through conduct. As the familiar saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.”
Unity Before an Early Solution
The Naga political problem is too serious, and the sacrifices of generations of Naga national workers too significant, for factionalism, mutual distrust, and political impatience to undermine the larger cause. An early solution is a legitimate aspiration, but urgency alone cannot overcome complex political differences.
The Naga Youth Movement and the so-called ‘Strange Bedfellows’ forum must therefore reflect on their responsibilities. Rather than merely pressuring others to act, they should also consider what they can contribute towards bridging the divisions that continue to weaken the national movement.
The question before us is not simply who should be blamed for the delay, but whether we are prepared to do what is necessary to make a lasting solution possible.
Let us first strive for unity, develop a common political understanding, and approach the Government of India with a united voice. Until we seriously address our internal divisions, demanding an early solution without unity will remain an exercise in misplaced priorities. The future of the Naga people must be built not on demands alone, but on political wisdom, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to our common destiny.
(Views expressed are personal)
K. Puroh