The emergence of the Concern Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN) is being portrayed as a timely intervention in the Naga political issue but it’s a case of strange bedfellows.
Share
The emergence of the Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN) is being portrayed by its members as a timely intervention in the protracted Naga political issue. Yet, a closer look reveals a far more complex, and troubling picture. If ever there was a case of “strange bedfellows,” this is it.
The forum is an unlikely congregation of individuals who, not too long ago, stood on opposing sides of the political divide, many of them fierce rivals, and several having occupied the highest offices of power as politicians and bureaucrats. Today, they speak in one voice (?). But unity, when built on unresolved contradictions, raises more questions than it answers.
At the heart of the CNFN’s position lies a glaring inconsistency. On the one hand, it acknowledges that the Government of India will ultimately settle for a single political agreement with the Nagas. On the other, it recognises the existence of a deeply fragmented political landscape, comprising the NSCN (IM), NNPGs and dozens of Naga political factions. How then does one reconcile the call for a singular, “early solution” with the reality of such profound disunity? The silence on this contradiction is deafening.
Even more perplexing is the forum’s apparent endorsement of former interlocutor R.N. Ravi. It is not forgotten that during his tenure as Governor of Nagaland, he reduced the Naga political issue to a mere “law and order problem” and labelled Naga national workers as “miscreants”, remarks that deeply hurt the collective sentiment of the Naga people. Yet today, the same forum links the delay in implementing agreements to rising unemployment and youth frustration. This selective memory borders on political convenience.
What is equally striking is the absence of introspection. Many within the CNFN are not outsiders to Nagaland’s governance history; they are, in fact, its architects. The socio-economic stagnation, the disillusioned youth, and the fragile political environment did not emerge overnight. They are, in part, the legacy of years of policy choices, administrative inertia, and missed opportunities under the very leadership that now calls for urgent solutions. To ignore this is to indulge in convenient amnesia.
The forum’s claim that no Naga political group has opposed the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position is another assertion that collapses under scrutiny. Such a sweeping statement attempts to manufacture consensus where none exists. The long-standing position of groups like the NNC/FGN, anchored firmly in the principle of self-determination, cannot simply be wished away. To equate silence or non-participation with consent is not only logically flawed but politically misleading.
Stripped of its rhetoric, the CNFN’s agenda appears singular: to push for a swift political settlement based on the existing agreements, (Framework Agreement & Agreed Position), irrespective of their limitations. While the desire for peace is both genuine and urgent, peace built on partial accommodation and selective representation risks being fragile, if not illusory.
The Naga political struggle has, for decades, revolved around the core principle of self-determination. It is not merely a negotiating point; it is the very foundation of the movement’s historical and political identity. Any attempt to dilute or bypass this principle in the name of expediency must be approached with caution.
By advocating the hurried implementation of agreements that many believe fall short of this foundational aspiration, the CNFN risks legitimising a settlement that may bring temporary calm but leave deeper questions unresolved. Such an approach may serve immediate administrative convenience, but it does little to secure a just and enduring peace.
In the final analysis, the issue is not whether Nagaland needs a political solution, it unquestionably does. The real question is: what kind of solution, and at what cost? If the answer involves compromising the very principle that has defined the Naga struggle, then the price may be far higher than what the present moment is willing to acknowledge.
The CNFN would do well to remember that history is not shaped merely by the urgency of outcomes, but by the integrity of the path taken to achieve them.
K. Puroh
(The writer taught Political Science at Patkai Christian College for the academic session of 1978/1979, and 29 years at Kohima College, till 2008. Views expressed are personal)