The Global Naga Forum (GNF) has issued a statement at a time when public discourse on the Naga political issue is being deliberately narrowed and distorted.
Share
Context and Purpose: The Global Naga Forum (GNF) issues this statement at a time when public discourse on the Naga political issue is being deliberately narrowed and distorted.
Recent assertions by influential voices—most notably S. C. Jamir and those who echo his line—have moved beyond critique of organisations or methods. They now question the very legitimacy of resistance, dissent, and alternative political persuasions among the Nagas.
This is not healthy debate. It is an attempt to decide, unilaterally, which Naga voices are acceptable and which must be delegitimised.
Disagreement among Nagas is neither new nor dangerous. What is dangerous is the shrinking of political space so that one worldview—aligned with administrative convenience and state power—claims moral superiority over all others. If this trajectory continues, the Naga political issue will not be resolved through dialogue or consent. It will be closed through exhaustion, intimidation, and selective silence.
This statement is not a reaction to personalities. It is a response to a trajectory. What follows addresses the specific accusations now circulating, in order to restore clarity, responsibility, and balance in Naga public life.
QUESTIONS BEING RAISED — FACTS THAT MUST BE STATED
1. “NSCN (IM) is the main reason the Naga political solution is delayed.”
GNF Response: This assertion is misleading and incomplete. For over two decades, negotiations have continued between the Government of India and Naga political groups, primarily NSCN (IM). During the same period, those now blaming delay on resistance have held the highest constitutional offices, enjoyed unrestricted access to Delhi, and publicly affirmed the Indian constitutional framework—yet delivered no political settlement. Delay cannot be attributed to one party alone, especially not the party without final authority to conclude or implement an agreement. To suggest otherwise obscures responsibility.
2. “Resistance has become an obstacle to peace and normalcy.”
GNF Response: Peace without political resolution is not peace; it is quiet administration. The Naga issue arose from non-consensual political incorporation. That foundational question remains unresolved. Calling resistance an “obstacle” presumes the issue is already settled and that remaining dissent is irrational. Normalcy cannot be built on unresolved denial.
3. “NSCN (IM) no longer represents the will of the Naga people.”
GNF Response: This claim is repeatedly asserted but never substantiated. No alternative political body chosen through collective Naga consent has been proposed; no legitimate mandate to negotiate has been demonstrated; no replacement interlocutor has been constituted. Delegitimising representation without replacement empties the negotiating space in favour of unilateral closure—an outcome that benefits only one side.
4. “The Naga struggle has caused too much suffering and division; it should end.”
GNF Response: Suffering is real, but isolating it from its causes is selective. Decades of militarisation, emergency laws, and coercive governance did not arise because of resistance; resistance arose because of them. Invoking suffering while remaining silent on state responsibility turns moral concern into political convenience. Ending a struggle without addressing its cause buries wounds rather than healing them.
5. “Development and progress are being held hostage by resistance.”
GNF Response: This argument fails on record. Long periods of governance under the Indian system, led by leaders who rejected resistance, did not produce accountable institutions or equitable development. Corruption expanded, dependency deepened, and political agency weakened. Development cannot substitute for political resolution; without dignity, development becomes management, not empowerment.
6. “It is time to move on; the younger generation wants closure.”
GNF Response: Closure without consent is not resolution; it is erasure. No generation has the moral authority to permanently surrender unresolved political rights on behalf of future generations. Fatigue is human, but it does not invalidate a people’s claim. Unresolved questions do not disappear; they resurface.
7. “Criticising resistance is free speech; why object?”
GNF Response: Free speech is not in question—political intent is. When criticism consistently targets resistance while leaving state power unexamined; when surrender is reframed as maturity and resistance as shame; when public opinion is prepared for the disappearance of political claims—this is no longer neutral speech. It is alignment.
8. “Those opposing this view are emotional, outdated, or irresponsible.”
GNF Response: This is a tactic, not an argument. Dismissing disagreement avoids addressing unresolved claims. Political maturity is measured by honesty and openness, not conformity.
GNF POSITION
The Global Naga Forum does not defend any organisation. It defends political space, historical honesty, and the right of Nagas to differ without intimidation. We reject attempts to reduce the Naga political issue to an administrative problem, to shift responsibility for delay entirely onto resistance, or to declare unresolved questions settled by repetition.
No individual or group has the authority to silence another Naga political persuasion.
FINAL WORD
This statement is issued in responsibility, not anger. Those who choose to speak from within power structures may do so, but they cannot demand silence from others nor rewrite history by assertion. The credibility of Naga public life depends not on who shouts loudest, but on who speaks truthfully and leaves space for dialogue.
Global Naga Forum