S.C. Jamir’s meeting with RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to discuss Naga political issue has brought questions of history, identity and political authority back into public discussion.
Naga political continuity, democratic space and the responsibility of a generation
The Naga political question is not going away, nor should it. It carries a history larger than any one agreement, organisation, tribe, leader or generation.
The Framework Agreement of 2015 and the Agreed Position of 2017 are part of that continuing journey. But they should not become reasons for ordinary life to remain on hold.
Dr. S.C. Jamir’s meeting with RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has brought questions of history, identity and political authority back into public discussion. Jamir met Bhagwat in New Delhi on September 10. He later said he had explained the Naga perspective, including the constitutional context and Article 371A, and asked the RSS to use its influence with the Central Government to help bring about an early settlement.
The meeting matters. It brings the Naga question into a wider national conversation. But it should not be mistaken for a settlement. Jamir is neither less Naga nor more Naga because he met Bhagwat. His belonging is not the issue. Nor does the meeting, by itself, make him the voice of all Nagas. Recognition means that our history and aspirations must be heard in their own context and that too by a consequential figure, the Chief of the RSS, call it what you may, the organisation representing the imagination of Hindu Political consciousness and culture.
The distinction between belonging and mandate became clearer on September 16, when the Political Affairs Committee of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, led by Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio, met NSCN (I-M) leaders at Rhododendron Hall in Chümoukedima. The consultation dealt with delays in the peace process and the proposed apex committee. NSCN (I-M) leader Rh Raising described it as a consultation, not a formal negotiation, and questioned Jamir’s authority to speak on the Naga issue.
That disagreement should be treated as a question of representation and authority, not turned into a test of who is sufficiently Naga to speak. Identity cannot depend on political approval. At the same time, no one gets to represent all Nagas simply because of their identity, experience or public standing. A mandate has to be established, and those who exercise it must answer for what they say and do.
So the question is not just who gets to speak. It is also this: who is answerable for the present, and who gets to keep putting that responsibility off?
The danger is that the argument over Jamir becomes a distraction from the responsibilities of those directly involved in the peace process.
The Naga political question did not begin with him, and its present condition cannot be blamed on him alone. But history cannot become a permanent excuse for those who have held authority over the years.
There is an imbalance here. An elder who is outside the current negotiations can quickly become the focus of public anger, while those who have exercised authority within the process may escape a fuller accounting. What positions have they taken? What commitments have they made? What opportunities were available, and how were they used? What have they explained to the people, and what remains unanswered?
These are fair questions. They should not be brushed aside with another round of blame or another promise that a solution is just around the corner.
The negotiating parties must answer for the positions they take, the commitments they make and the progress they report. The State Government must answer for governing Nagaland and protecting the interests of its people. And if a Pan-Naga institution is created, it too must answer for the powers it exercises, the people it claims to represent and the limits placed on its authority. No institution should be beyond scrutiny simply because it is connected to a historic political cause.
Article 371A also needs to be kept in its proper place. It is a constitutional safeguard. It should not be used to suggest that protecting Naga identity is somehow at odds with democratic participation, accountable government or the everyday aspirations of citizens. We should not have to choose between protecting who we are and expecting our institutions to work properly.
The negotiations must continue. But life cannot wait for them to finish. People need jobs. Young people need opportunities to build a future here rather than feel that leaving is their only option. Local institutions must do their work. Public services must function. Families must be able to plan their lives without every question being pushed into the shadow of an unfinished political process.
A settlement may shape our political future. It cannot do the living for us. We should not absolve anyone from scrutiny. But we should also refuse to make one person the sole container of a collective disappointment.
The argument over Jamir must not become a way for everyone else to avoid looking at their own record.
There is a responsibility here that belongs to our generation. We have inherited a history marked by sacrifice, conflict, competing visions and promises that remain unfulfilled. We should neither deny that history nor accept every part of it without question.
The burden of inheritance is not simply that we carry the past. It is that we may carry it without examining it—repeating old arguments, preserving old divisions and postponing decisions that now belong to us.
A generation must be willing to ask what it has inherited, what still serves the people, what needs to change and what it has learned to repeat without thinking.
Jamir’s intervention can be debated. Its limits can be questioned. His claims can be tested against the historical record and the realities of today. But he should not be made the repository of our failures, any more than he should be treated as the person who can deliver us from them.
The past may help explain how we arrived here. It cannot answer for what we choose to do next.
The political question must be protected, but it cannot be allowed to consume every other question. Our history deserves recognition, but we must not become prisoners of inherited narratives. We should demand accountability without making identity the test of who deserves to be heard.
Jamir cannot be our scapegoat. He cannot be our escape hatch.
The responsibility is ours. Live. Be heard. We owe no allegiance to silence. Courage belongs to the living, not the grave.
Limhachan Kikon