A 28-member Naga delegation returns to Dimapur after receiving 39 ancestral remains from the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford
.JPG-1794402713861.webp&w=1200&q=75)
DIMAPUR — After more than a century away from their homeland, 39 Naga ancestral remains are on their way home from the United Kingdom, following a six-year repatriation process that culminated in their handover by the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, on November 9.
A 28-member Naga delegation that received the remains returned to Dimapur on Wednesday, describing the repatriation as the “most remarkable chapter in the history of Naga healing and reconciliation.”
The delegation comprised representatives of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR), the Recover, Restore and Decolonise (RRaD) team and Naga tribal hohos.
Speaking to the media at Dimapur airport, FNR member Dr. Visier Sanyü described the return as the “most significant chapter of healing”, while acknowledging the difficult legal, ethical, moral and spiritual questions involved in the negotiations.
Also read: After more than a century, Oxford transfers custody of 39 ancestral remains to Naga people
-1794402704602.webp&w=1200&q=75)
After six years of engagement with the museum and consultations among Naga tribes, he said, the remains were finally returning through a collective effort. He described the development as the beginning of another journey for the Naga people.
FNR-RRaD convenor Rev. Dr. Ellen Konyak said the repatriation asserted the Naga people's right to care for ancestral human remains taken from their homeland “under duress.” The process, she said, had also given the museum and the Naga people an opportunity to confront their histories and work towards a shared understanding.
Konyak informed that a public event would be held at the designated memorial site at Naga Solidarity Park in Kohima. Details of the programme would be announced later.
Describing the return as a moment of mourning as well as celebration, she said it would be an occasion for burial, memory-making, reparation and healing.
Vice-president of the Phom People's Council, NT Thamlom Phom, said the delegation represented Naga tribal hohos across the homeland and carried the goodwill of those unable to join the journey. According to him, the hohos had worked with FNR and RRaD since 2024, contributing to the process that culminated in the November 9 handover at Oxford.
WATCH MORE:
He appealed to the governments of Nagaland and India to expedite the necessary protocols and procedures for their transfer and burial.
Phom invited the Naga public to participate in the homecoming and burial ceremony. He added that the remains would be accorded a dignified burial after being displaced from their homeland for more than a century.
Burial to combine tradition and Christian practices
Asked whether the burial would follow traditional Naga customs or Christian rites, Phom said it would incorporate both, acknowledging that Christianity had become part of Naga life.
Sanyü said the two were not mutually exclusive, adding that the remains would be buried in accordance with Naga culture and traditions as Christians.
The return comes amid questions raised by the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) over the authority and mandate under which the repatriation was pursued.
In a November 5 statement, the FGN had asked the university to suspend the transfer and review the process through which the repatriation was approved.
The FGN maintained that its objection was not to repatriation in principle but to the authority under which the claim was made, the mandates presented to the university and the process followed.
It added that it had written to the museum on October 15 and 26, seeking a halt to the transfer.
Asked about the objection, Sanyü responded that the FNR welcomed the FGN and NNC's decision to raise questions, describing it as part of a democratic process. He said that he had met representatives and explained the repatriation process to them.
Sanyü attributed the differences partly to the absence of direct communication, saying the matter had been discussed through newspaper statements rather than face-to-face engagement.