Nagaland: When Survival is no Longer Enough

Limhachan Kikon

For decades, the Naga political story has endured through conflict, negotiation, sacrifice, and resilience. That endurance matters. Survival under pressure is no small achievement. It reflects a people’s refusal to disappear, to be erased, or to surrender identity under difficult circumstances. But survival, however honourable, is not the same as growth.

There comes a point in every long struggle when endurance alone cannot be the final measure of success. Our society must eventually ask what it is building, not only what it has resisted. The Naga story is too deep, too intelligent, and too rich in memory to be reduced to a permanent stalemate.

The Naga people possess assets many societies would envy: resilience shaped by hardship, intellect sharpened by debate, faith rooted in community, diaspora ties that widen perspective, and strong social capital sustained through tribe, church, and family networks. These are not the characteristics of a people destined to remain trapped in repetition.

Yet repetition has become part of the problem. Old scripts continue to dominate public life: negotiations without closure, symbolism without institutional outcomes and accountability, factional competition without strategic unity, and emotional attachment to positions long after their practical value has diminished. What once served a historical purpose may no longer be able to carry the demands of the present.

Discomfort often enters at the point of transition. What seems to be “breaking” is not always the core itself, but the container that once held it together. Structures, methods, and habits that once preserved legitimacy can, over time, begin to limit possibility. Questioning them can feel dangerous, and reforming them can feel like disloyalty.

That reaction is natural. Old containers carry memory. They hold sacrifice, struggle, and the authority of those who paid a heavy price. When cracks appear, it can feel like a betrayal of history itself. But refusing to renew them carries its own risk. It can become another kind of betrayal—not of the past, but of the future, and of the generation that must live with the consequences of delay.

No people can live forever between memory and momentum. Honouring the past is necessary, but governing the future is equally necessary. Identity must be protected, but opportunity must also be created. Political dignity must coexist with roads, jobs, institutions, investment, and social confidence.