The Naga political groups have signed Framework Agreement, and Agreed Position with the government of India but the Naga political issue remains unsolved.
Reflections on the past, present, and future of the Naga people
INTRODUCTION: The history of the Naga people is one of profound transformation. The advent of Christianity and modern education in the late 19th century marked a civilisational shift from traditional practices toward a new worldview. The Gospel first reached the Ao region of Mokokchung in 1872, followed by the establishment of the Kohima Mission field in 1885. With literacy and faith came schools, healthcare, and a redefinition of community life.
This spirit of transformation found powerful expression in Longleng district. On June 6, 1952, the Phom community, under the leadership of Hamnyeiand Yongtau, made a historic pledge known today as Phom Day. The community resolved to:
- End headhunting completely,
- Cease hostilities with rival villages,
- Live in peace and loyalty to lawful authority.
As a symbol of this commitment, spears and weapons were buried beneath what is now the Phom Day Peace Monument — an act signifying the laying down of pride, greed, misunderstanding, and prejudice. Former Nagaland Governor R.N. Ravi aptly observed that Longleng “is flourishing based on the spirit of universal brotherhood.” From a society once defined by inter-village raids to one embracing peace, the journey reflects a caterpillar-to-butterfly metamorphosis. Education gradually took root across Naga areas, becoming a foundation for further change.
Political Journey
1. The First Political Voice: Memorandum to the Simon Commission, 1929
The first collective political expression of the Nagas came on January 10, 1929, when the Naga Club, Kohima submitted a memorandum to the British Statutory Commission, also known as the Simon Commission.
The memorandum requested that the Naga Hills “be withdrawn from the Reformed Scheme of India and placed directly under the British Government.” It stated unequivocally: “We never asked for any reforms and we do not wish for any reforms.”
The signatories noted that before British annexation in 1879–1880, Nagas were never subject to Assamese or Manipuri rule, and that “there was no unity among us; it is really the British Government that is holding us together now.” Their primary concern was inclusion in India without their knowledge or consent. This document remains a cornerstone of modern Naga political history.
2. Declaration of Independence and armed struggle
On August 14, 1947, one day before India’s independence, the Naga National Council (NNC) declared Naga independence. What followed was a prolonged armed movement for self-determination. For decades, despite military pressure, the movement endured.
It was during this period that A.Z. Phizo, president of the NNC, made a prescient observation: “Nagas will never surrender in the battlefield, but many Nagas will fall when money was shot through the barrel of gun.”
Phizo had refused numerous offers from Prime Minister Nehru including governorships, cabinet positions, and even the presidency, stating: “I refused the offers because I love our Naga people more than anything else in this world… I was horrified that if these offerings were made to any other Naga who may not love our people as much as I do, then I knew we would have gone.” By “money shot through the barrel of gun,” he meant political inducement and financial co-option, not bullets. He feared corruption would accomplish what military force could not: internal division.
3. International outreach and internal division
As per the record available to us, to strengthen the movement, leaders like General Thinoselie M. Keyho and Thuingaleng Muivah travelled to China for political and military training. In 1969 Muivah, who was in China then, received General Mowu Gwizan, Commander-in-Chief, and Isak Chishi Swu, then Alee (Foreign) Secretary, along with 350 Naga army personnel.
The years that followed, however, saw increasing mistrust. Many China-returned leaders were arrested and detained in Tihar and Mawlai jails. The Shillong Accord, signed on November 11, 1975 at Shillong, Meghalaya, between the Government of India and sections of the “Naga underground,” led to fratricidal conflict. Thousands surrendered and were absorbed into the Nagaland Armed Police, BSF battalions, or the newly raised Naga Regiment. Disillusioned patriots formed the Revolutionary Government of Nagaland, as they thought it was the best alternative of the political imbroglio then.
4. Fragmentation and the ceasefire era
Then, there was NSCN, formed in 1980 but split in 1988, beginning a tragic phase of inter-factional conflict. The political energy that once faced a common adversary turned inward. A new chapter began with the Indo-Naga Ceasefire Agreement between the NSCN-IM and the Government of India, signed on July 25, 1997 in Bangkok and effective from August 1, 1997. This ceasefire remains in force, extended annually for over 28 years.
Two major frameworks followed:
- Framework Agreement: Signed on August 3, 2015 in New Delhi between NSCN-IM and GoI, witnessed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
- Agreed Position: Signed on November 17, 2017 in New Delhi between GoI and the Working Committee of NNPG, comprising seven Naga political groups.
Yet, the intended final settlement remains elusive. From a handful of groups in the 1990s, there are now reportedly over 30 factions. The prolonged ceasefire, while preventing large-scale conflict, has also enabled proliferation. For the public, three decades of “peace process” without a solution risks breeding cynicism rather than confidence.
The imperative is clear: Both negotiating sides must demonstrate sincerity and urgency to conclude the talks. Continued delay risks further fragmentation. The people are weary. It is time to set aside ego and personal interest for the collective good. How much longer can a resolution be deferred? Shed off your ego and other differences and come together for greater Naga interest.
Religion: Conviction and Public Witness
In contemporary discourse, there is frequent criticism of political movements perceived as advancing a particular religious identity. Yet consistency demands introspection. If one expects others to be unapologetic about their convictions, Christian leaders, whether in politics, civil society, or the Church, must also be willing to articulate and live their faith without compromise.
The concern is not with the religious dedication of others, but with the weakening of one’s own. Globally, cities once known as centres of Christian thought now have leaders of other faiths. The lesson is not to resent that reality, but to recognise that when conviction recedes, influence does as well.
Naga society, with its deep Christian heritage, benefits when its leaders combine personal integrity with public witness. Faith that shapes private life should also inform public service, not through imposition, but through example, compassion, and principled leadership. A society that stands for truth must first be willing to speak it clearly and live it consistently.
Social Fabric: The Challenge of Unity
Perhaps the most pressing question today is that of unity. The Naga political journey has been marked by repeated fragmentation. Institutions once meant to represent collective aspirations have struggled to sustain broad-based participation.
Today, regional bodies such as the Tenyimi Union, CNTC, and ENPO often command stronger allegiance than pan-Naga platforms. The Naga Hoho faces questions of representation. Student bodies like the NSF and ENSF function in parallel. Few apex organisations with representation from all tribes have endured less than a decade.
This trend reflects a deeper challenge: the tension between tribal/regional identity and a shared Naga identity. While diversity is a strength, persistent factionalism weakens collective bargaining and social cohesion. When every issue is viewed through a tribal lens, the larger Naga interest becomes secondary.
Unity cannot be legislated; it must be cultivated. It requires leaders who place the common good above organisational turf, and citizens who demand accountability from all factions.
Conclusion: Whither Nagas?
So, we return to the question: Whither Nagas? Where are we headed?
1. We have a legacy of transformation from headhunting to Phom Day, from isolation to education. Change is possible when leadership is courageous.
2. We have a political process ceasefire, a Framework Agreement, and an Agreed Position. But process without conclusion breeds fatigue. The time for closure is now.
3. We have a crisis of unity in politics, in civil society, and in institutions. Fragmentation serves no one except those who benefit from division.
4. We have a choice to continue on a path of endless talks and multiplying factions, or to insist on integrity, accountability, and a final settlement that honours the sacrifices of generations.
The public is not asking for the impossible. It is asking for sincerity, for closure, and for leaders who will “bury ego” as the Phoms buried their spears in 1952.
The future of the Nagas will not be determined by outside forces alone, but by whether Nagas themselves can rediscover the unity of purpose that once defined pivotal moments in their history.
The question “Whither Nagas?” is not rhetorical. It demands an answer from every leader, every faction, and every citizen. The next dawn, will only come when we decide to lay down what divides us and take up what unites us.
S. Akho Leyri
Kohima, Nagaland