The ongoing controversy over Dr. S. C. Jamir began with his recent political choices.
The ongoing controversy over Dr. S. C. Jamir began with his recent political choices. The immediate concern arose from eyewitness accounts claiming that Dr. S. C. Jamir and Manipur Deputy Chief Minister Nemcha Kipgen travelled on the same Dimapur–Delhi flight on 9 September 2026, followed by reports that they left the airport together under a common security-escort arrangement.
The episode, witnessed by most of the co-passengers on that flight, naturally raises questions. Travelling on the same flight may itself be coincidental, but a coordinated onward movement under a common security arrangement would ordinarily involve prior logistical coordination and orchestration among several people from both camps. Amid the present atmosphere of serious Naga–Kuki tensions in Manipur, Nagas are therefore entitled to ask what circumstances led to such an arrangement and how many political interactions preceded the coordination.
Nemcha Kipgen, wife of Kuki National Front (KNF) chief Thangboi, has been well documented beyond any contest as the kingpin or mastermind of the proxification and weaponisation of Kuki mercenaries. Given this background, any apparent political proximity between a sworn Naga enemy and a former senior Naga leader was inevitably going to attract scrutiny.
Jamir has explained that he approached Bhagwat because of the RSS leadership’s influence with the BJP-led Government of India and urged his intervention to dissolve the democratically elected State Government and bring about an early political settlement for the Nagas.
Whether one agrees with Jamir’s judgment or not, one fact remains clear: he chose whom to meet, what political channel to use and how to intervene in the Naga political process. Other Nagas, therefore, have every right to question those choices. And the reaction that followed did not emerge from nowhere.
At the September 16 Political Affairs Committee consultation, NSCN (IM) leaders V. S. Atem and R. H. Raising publicly questioned Jamir’s mandate and political standing to speak on the Naga issue. Ao Senden subsequently intervened, condemned those remarks, demanded their withdrawal within 15 days and warned that failure to do so could compel it to take its “own course of action.” That is where the larger and more important debate begins.
Was it really necessary to elevate criticism of one former leader into an institutional confrontation?
Jamir has every right to speak. Atem and Raising also have the right to speak. But the right to speak is not a right to political deference. Other Nagas have the right to have their own opinions—whether a particular move is helpful, politically relevant or simply wrong.
What fundamentally changes when an individual’s choice and views are questioned? Does the Naga political process stop? Does the Naga cause weaken? Does one’s identity suffer merely because a leader is questioned?
The Ao Senden has stated that the Naga political issue does not belong exclusively to any individual, organisation or faction and that any Naga citizen with an understanding of the issue may express views and contribute to the political process. This principle could have ended the controversy.
Jamir speaks. Some disagree. Public opinion judges both.
Why should it require an ultimatum? Why should criticism of one individual become an institutional confrontation? Why should another generation once again be drawn into the familiar Jamir-versus-NSCN, faction-versus-faction, personality-versus-personality rhetoric?
These rivalries largely belong to another political generation. Jamir and Muivah have carried political differences for decades. Different Naga factions have accumulated decades of ideological disputes, personal antagonisms, competing narratives, mistrust and bitterness. Then there are prominent personalities who emerged from political circumstances very different from those confronting younger Nagas today.
Their histories matter. Their sacrifices should be recorded. Their achievements should be acknowledged. Their mistakes should also be examined. But their rivalries need not become hereditary.
A young Ao does not automatically inherit Jamir’s enemies. A young Tangkhul does not automatically inherit Muivah’s enemies. The same applies to other leaders and communities.
Tomorrow’s Naga relationships should not be predetermined by quarrels that began before much of Gen Z was even born. That baggage has already cost Nagas enough.
Some personalities quarrel. Organisations rally behind them. Tribal emotions are activated. Historical wounds reopen. And another generation is asked to choose sides. Why?
Why should younger Nagas continue to reproduce a political ecosystem centred on ageing personalities and decades-old antagonisms?
Their generation faces different challenges:
1. Land and territorial security.
2. The unresolved Naga political settlement.
3. Governance and corruption.
4. Unemployment and economic stagnation.
5. Regional geopolitics.
6. Armed organisations.
7. Demographic pressures.
8. Relations with neighbouring communities.
9. The challenge of building unity across tribal and factional divisions.
Those questions require new thinking. They cannot forever be processed through Jamir versus Muivah, faction versus faction, tribe versus tribe, personality versus personality.
This is also where Ao Senden can reflect carefully. The Ao society has no shortage of educated, capable and politically conscious younger men and women. Its institutional energy can be directed towards nurturing that generation, encouraging independent political thinking and helping construct a common Naga future.
Nobody is being silenced. No one is being prevented from expressing oneself. Individuals are being questioned, but that is normal for public figures. If one’s ideas remain persuasive, they will survive criticism. If they no longer resonate, society will naturally move beyond them.
No institution can make an individual or group indispensable. No generation should be compelled to inherit political enemies merely because it respects history.
Let the leaders speak.
Let history remember their contributions.
Let younger Nagas listen where wisdom remains.
Let young Nagas reject what they believe no longer serves the collective future.
Respecting an elder does not require inheriting his or her enemies. Honouring history does not require carrying its bitterness indefinitely.
The sequence—from the reported Jamir–Nemcha travel episode on 9 September, to Jamir’s confirmed meeting with Mohan Bhagwat on 10 September, to the subsequent criticism from NSCN (IM) leaders and finally to Ao Senden’s 15-day ultimatum—should therefore provoke a much larger reflection.
How much longer must Gen Z Nagas fight political battles inherited from another generation? Their elders have spoken for decades. Their disagreements are well known. Their rivalries are well documented. Their contributions belong to history.
But history is not a command for permanent obedience. Gen Z Nagas should have the confidence to say:
1. We respect what you contributed.
2. We will learn from what you endured.
3. But we will not inherit every enemy you created, every rivalry you sustained or every political burden you leave behind.
The Naga Gen Z must move beyond inherited factionalism, tribalised political bickering, and rhetoric created by another generation.
Respect the past. Learn from it. But give the future back to those who must live in it.
Siilunii Rapaobamai
A concerned Naga