Federal Government of Nagaland asks Oxford to suspend the handover of 39 Naga ancestral remains and review its decision
DIMAPUR — Days before 39 Naga ancestral remains are scheduled to be handed over by the University of Oxford, the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) has challenged the decision, asking the university to suspend the transfer and review the process through which repatriation was approved.
In a formal representation submitted to Oxford Vice-Chancellor Professor Irene Tracey on November 4, the FGN, functioning within the framework of the Naga National Council (NNC), questioned the authority of those who submitted the repatriation claim and the university's consideration of the NNC's institutional position.
The challenge concerns the university's July 13 decision to approve the return of the 39 remains held at the Pitt Rivers Museum (PRM).
In a press statement issued on Thursday, the FGN maintained that its objection was not to repatriation in principle, but to the authority under which the claim was made, the mandates presented to the university and the process through which the decision was reached.
Also read: 39 Naga ancestral remains likely to reach Nagaland by mid-November
The NNC had communicated its institutional position to Oxford on September 22, 2025, before the university's decision, and followed it up with further correspondence on September 14, 2026, the FGN stated. It added that it had written to the museum on October 15 and 26, seeking a halt to the process and suspension of the physical transfer.
“The NNC-FGN maintains that matters concerning Naga national interests and ancestral human remains must be addressed with due recognition of the Naga national institutional framework. Research teams, academics and intermediaries may facilitate discussions, but their participation does not, by itself, confer authority to initiate a repatriation process on behalf of the Naga national institution or determine the ultimate disposition of ancestral remains,” the statement read.
While acknowledging the roles of tribal hohos, customary institutions and community organisations, it argued that their mandates could not automatically be treated as authority to represent the wider Naga national position.
The FGN has asked Oxford to disclose the resolutions and written authorisations on which it relied in recognising the claimant's authority to submit the repatriation request. It has also sought details of consultations with the tribal bodies concerned and how the claimant's role evolved from facilitating discussions to submitting a formal claim.
The representation also questioned the university's reference to Article 371A of the Constitution of India in explaining customary authority over the care of the dead. The FGN argued that Naga authority over ancestral remains was rooted in the people's historical and institutional identity and did not derive from the constitutional provision.
It further maintained that the question of ancestral remains could not be separated from the wider historical and political context of the Naga people, including the unresolved Indo-Naga political issue. The university's academic and research responsibilities, it argued, did not give it authority to determine Naga political representation or institutional legitimacy.
On the question of preservation, the FGN acknowledged that the remains were exceptionally scarce in Naga society and could offer opportunities for future Naga scholarship and scientific research. It has sought disclosure of provenance investigations, previous examinations, research undertaken and expert advice considered before the university approved repatriation.
The representation sets out four demands: immediate suspension of all physical transfer arrangements; disclosure of documents and communications relating to the claim and decision; a comprehensive written response and direct engagement with the NNC-FGN position; and an independent review of the claimant's authority, the different institutional positions and the university's application of its Human Remains Policy 2006.
According to the FGN, the questions raised extended beyond the 39 remains at Oxford to ancestral human remains and cultural heritage held in museums and institutions outside Naga territories.
It has urged the university to suspend the handover until the objections are addressed through disclosure, engagement and independent review. Oxford's response to the representation was not available at the time of filing.