Naga political discourse must align history with ‘contemporary realities’— WC-NNPG

DIMAPUR — The Working Committee of the Naga National Political Groups (WC-NNPG) has asserted that any final political settlement must be rooted in “historical realities” while acknowledging “contemporary political realities,” cautioning apex tribal hohos against what it described as “selective amnesia” at a crucial moment in Naga political history.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the WC-NNPG, led by its convenor N Kitovi Zhimomi, said apex Naga tribal bodies should remember their own roles between 2016 and 2019, when they “extensively” engaged with NNPG leaders and voluntarily issued joint statements as crucial stakeholders in the Naga political process. It said many of those who participated remain alive and “relevant to the Indo-Naga political context.”

The committee reiterated that the Agreed Position signed on November 17, 2017, emerged from prolonged consultations involving apex tribal hohos, churches, prayer groups and community custodians. It described the document as a “refined political thought process” shaped by Naga intellectuals and months of discussions prior to its signing.

The WC-NNPG said it had actively engaged tribal hohos and civil society groups from Nagaland, Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh before entering official negotiations with the Government of India (GoI) in October 2017. It said the core understanding was that the GoI should respect Naga history and identity, while Nagas must recognise the “practical difficulties” of the Indian government.

According to the committee, its negotiating team adopted a calm and precise approach, avoiding “rhetorical or sentimental” positions, and ensured that all agreed points were formally recorded and shared.

The statement also criticised what it termed “historical inconsistencies and distortions” that, it claimed, had emerged in recent years. These issues, it argued, neither found acknowledgment from the GoI nor were accessible to the wider Naga public.

Commenting on the 2015 Framework Agreement (FA), the WC-NNPG said that on the day of its signing, the NSCN (IM) cut communication with the FNR, other Naga groups, civil society bodies and tribal organisations, leaving the public “in the dark” about their political future. It claimed that no church or tribal representatives were present at the signing and that no celebrations took place in Nagaland that night, unlike in Manipur where Nagas organised candle light programmes.

“Very soon, the GoI realised the soul and spirit of Naga political movement was absent from the ceremony,” the statement read.

The WC-NNPG also stressed the urgency of resolving the political issue in light of the growing number of educated Naga youth entering the job market each year.

It said the current generation is “aware of Naga history” and also understands “which leaders are playing with their futures.”

The committee stated that while Naga history, culture and political rights remain shared ideals across Naga-inhabited areas, the geographical and population-based integration of all Naga regions “is not possible at this time.” It said Nagas will continue to coexist with Meiteis, Kukis, Mizos, Ahoms and Arunachalis, and must pursue cooperation in historical and cultural spheres.

It added that this reality formed the basis of a key clause in the 2017 Agreed Position, where both sides acknowledged Naga rights to self-determination “with due regard to contemporary political realities.”

The WC-NNPG said this balance—between historical identity and present-day realities—must guide the political discourse as Nagas consider the road ahead.