PLACING THE NAGA CONFLICT IN PRESENT:

By Arjoma Moulick

Introduction:
The Naga Conflict is the longest human drawn conflict for an independent nation of Nagalim,
which constitutes parts of Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Myanmar. The map of
Greater Nagalim is about 1,20,000 sq km whereas the state of Nagaland consists of 16,527 sq
km. Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh have always been wary of the claims of Greater
Nagalim fearing the effect it might have on their respective territories. The demand of Greater
Nagalim has changed many meanings, but the most reiterated one includes “Integration of all
Naga inhabited areas under one administrative umbrella” which was reiterated in the Nagaland
Assembly in 1964, 1994, 2003, 2015. (Kashyap, 2015) India has repeatedly considered that
Nagaland is an integral part of the union, and hence the question of Nagalim cannot be
entertained in the context of integrity. The Nagas are a group of 17 Identified Naga tribes and
several others unclassified tribes according to the Indian Census of 2001. Majority of these tribes
still practice the Jhum Nagaland. The movement of independence from India started from June
1947. (Singh, 2013)
The Naga National Council (NNC) is the political wing of the Naga Federal Government, the
party has constantly constituted the Nagas as a separate nation. The major claim that they stake is
that the British rule has never been subjected to the Naga people or in other words they are not
part of the Indian Nation. (Misra, 1978)
NNC requested for an interim government to Mountbatten to look over defense forces to aid civil
power in case of emergency. Due to the failure of the agreement, NNC organized a plebiscite
which was on the question whether Nagaland should be a part of Indian Union, and to show that
the call for independence is not a call of a few misguided Nagas (Singh, 2013)

Tracing the Conflict:

The conflict can be divided into three main phases-

I Phase:
The 9-Point Agreement was an ambiguous agreement which the Nagas interpreted it as the right
to independence after the interim period of 10 years was over, to the Indian government it
implied the right to administrative changes within the country. The in-text argument that was
used in the 9-point Agreement between Indian Government and the NNC called the Naga-Akbar
Hydari Accord included that –

“The Governor of Assam and Agent of Government of India (GOI) will have special
responsibility of 10 years. At the end of period NNC will be asked if they require an extension of
a new agreement” (Naga National Council- Akbar Hydari , 1947)

By 1949 the agreement was revoked. By 1951 the Indian government asserted Nagaland as the
legal heir to the land after British Raj. Nagas rejected the other side of the deal “autonomy under
its constitution.” NNC conducted a plebiscite which was rejected by UN, British government,
and Indian Government. They also rejected the 1951 election which led to banning of NNC. By
1956 the Naga Hill district was declared as disturbed area under Assam Disturbed Act of 1955.
In 1958, it was replaced by Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The Naga People’s Council
(NPC) which was formed by group of Naga leaders in 1957 proposed for the larger political
entity comprising of Naga Hill district and Tuensang (Now Arunachal Pradesh). The Indian
Government proposed for the Naga-Hill-Tuensang Area, further they proposed for the elevation
of the area to state. The 16-Point Agreement of 1960, between Indian Government and NPC
suggested to elevate position of Naga Hill District to a state and that no law /act should be passed
in Indian parliament regarding religious practices, Customary laws, civil/criminal procedure and
ownership and transfer of land of the Naga people. By 1963 it came to be known as Nagaland.
But still it failed to end the conflict but came as a victory to the pro- India lobbyist. In 1964,
series of talks under Peace Mission was held under Jaiprakash Narayan, to explore ways of
restoration of peace and normalcy in the region, which also ultimately failed. NNC was declared
as an illegal organization with assassination attempt on Hokishe Sema and AFSPA was
renewed. (Singh, 2013)

The Shillong agreement marked an important period in 1975 where 6 insurgent leaders from
NNC and L.P Singh from Indian Government signed an agreement to abide by the constitution of
India and surrender arms. This failed majorly because the 6 leaders were weak and unpopular
leaders and did not represent the people of Nagaland, and neither did they stand up to the
expectation of the people’s demands in Nagaland. This led to the breakup of NNC in 1980 into
National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) which further split into NSCN-K led by Mr S.S.
Khaplang and NSCN-IM led by Mr I.C. Swu and Mr Th. Muivah (most popular). The Shillong
Agreement re-energized the conflict. NNC rejected the Shillong agreement calling it an
agreement to sell Naga nation and the rights of the Naga people to Indian Constitution.” This is a
reminder that in any conflict situation it is the most popular leaders who stand the chance on
conversing on behalf of the people to the other counterpart. (Singh, 2013) The accord stated:

“The representatives of organisations conveyed their decision, of their own volition, to accept,
without condition, the constitution of India. It was agreed that the arms, would be brought out
and deposited at appointed places. Details for giving effect of this agreement will be worked out
between them and representatives of the government, the security forces, and members of the
Liaison Committee” (United Nations Peacemaker, 1975)

The Shillong Accord was a major disappointment for the Naga aspirations because the 6
individual leaders were a disspointment with their proposition of surrendering arms and abide by
the country’s constitution, in return there was no guarantee from the government side towards a
resolution (Singh, 2013)

II Phase:
The Pro-India Lobbyist were always rewarded, and the major success for them was the
formation of the state was a major achievement for them, they did not favor negotiated
settlement they had strong faith in the Constitution of India. The factional divide in Nagaland
due to Localism1 and Tribalism2 has clogged Naga effort towards achieving Nationhood, as they
are divided along multiple fault lines. Pro-Independence groups were riddled with inter-tribal
rivalry and a struggle for hegemonic domination of the tribals. (Singh, 2013)

1
Love for Village
2
Tribal superiority over collective effort
In 2004-2006 multiple incidents were noted due to factional conflict. NSCN-IM emerged as the
most acceptable armed group. In the current scenario NSCN-IM signed the last ceasefire with the
Central Government. It must be noted that the Government of India made no effort to reach out
the fraction which demand for independence, whereas NNC argument stands on the firm ground
that those who have fought for the Naga people are the ones who can enter into authorized
agreements. The formation of Nagaland created a political class, which gave the leaders from
Nagaland a political stage, where secessionist ideas and campaigns can be challenged by their
own people whose loyalty rests with India. (Singh, 2013)

Factional conflict (Deaths) Last decade

1. 17 2004
2. 14 2005
3. 90 2006
4. 112 2008
5. 112 2012
(Source: Imkong L. Imchen, the home minister of Nagaland, revealed the data in Nagaland
legislative assembly at Kohima)

III Phase:
The Self-Proclaimed Homeland of NSCN-IM is Nagalim is also problematic, the Nagas
currently want ceasefire to cover areas of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur, where the
Naga tribes reside. The Nagaland Assembly has released resolutions demanding the central
government to bring the Naga areas together in 964, 1970, 1994, 2003. (Singh, 2013)
Manipur is the largest Naga inhabited area outside Nagaland with Tribes like Kabui, Kacha
Naga, Mao, Maram Maring, Tangkhul. Manipur fears if such aspirations of the Greater Nagalim
are realized it would hamper with the territorial areas under it. Manipur’s anxiety was at the
highest on 14th June and 18th June 2001 where protestors were agitated against the ceasefire being
extended- without territorial limits’ with 18 dead Manipur declared 18th June as ‘State integrity
day’ and as a public holiday in remembrance of 18 Martyrs and is remembered as “Great June
Uprising Day’. The United Naga Council which supports the demand of the Nagalim launched
movements called “Alternative Administrative Arrangement” to accommodate the Nagas living
in Manipur without the involvement of Manipur government. Moreover, the Naga People’s Front
a political party tried to win the Naga support in Manipur by contesting elections on 4 fronts-
Protecting the Naga Identity, Land. Continue with Naga peace process and the establishment of
alternative arrangement of the Naga in Manipur. (Singh, 2013) Manipur, Assam legislative
assembly has passed several resolutions against the proposed Nagalim it has passed multiple
resolutions 1995- which urged all ethnic groups of the state to refrain from demanding new
states. 2002- urged the Central government to protect the territorial integrity of the state (Singh,
2013). The Indian Constitution can do so under Article 2(4)
Assam has been constantly weary for the formation of the Nagalim, in the past during the
Sarbanada Sonwal who stated that not an inch of state’s land will be parted, and that the
territorial integrity of the state would be protected, this was in the backdrop of 2015 framework.
Assam government has been vociferiously against the formation of Nagalim, in past it had called
for special session in state assemblies fearing the propositions. (Singh B. , 2017)
In Arunachal Pradesh, most Naga tribes inhabit the areas in Longding, Tirap, Changland. The
All-Arunachal Pradesh Students Union have strongly opposed the decision to redraw the state
outline to accommodate the aspirations of the demand of Nagalim. The current Chief Minister of
Arunachal Pradesh had also opposed the 2015 framework which said not to have undertook the
aspirations of the people of the Stakeholders namely – Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh.
(Kalita, 2019)

Why are Rebel Groups Supported:

As mentioned the most famous and popular rebel group at this point is NSCN-IM, apart from
these there are different Naga armed groups, they all have the goal to secure an independent state
for Naga with the integration of the Naga populated areas in the Northeast into a single entity.
The rebel groups have established an administration which serves the social welfare to gain
public support. They have laid down rules which allows them to control resources and enforce
them. Further this weakens the support of the population to the state institutions and thus by de-
legitimizing the public support towards these institutions. The armed groups have parallel
governments such as Federal Government of Nagaland, Government of the People’s Republic of
Nagaland. They have parliament like institutions with local names like Tatar-Hoho and as well
as Standing Armies like Naga Home Guards and Naga Army. Extortions are very common to
extort money from government and public. These illicit taxes are collected from the traders,
contractors, politicians, and common people. These are few ways through which the rebel groups
collect money to run their programs. The tax collection along the Dimapur-Mao-Imphal stretch
was under the control of the rebel groups, ultimately, they made common people are depended
on the armed groups as these groups asserted their control over the highways. Even localized
groups have started promoting community-based peacebuilding. (Singh :. M., 2013)

Why is Naga Issue being in news again?

Muivah who is the general secretary of NSCN-IM has warned the Indian government not to
make past mistake it did back in 2015, and past peace process. The external catalysts which are
tying to break the Naga movement and its unity, Muivah thus in this context wanted a resolution
at the earliest. The rebel group agreed the framework that was agreed in 2015 was hurriedly
rushed into between India and NSCN-IM. However, the 2015 Framework stood out and yet
failed for the following the reasons:
1. The shift in the goal of NSCN(IM) from the demand of Greater Nagalim as complete
separate nation to a more constitutional sovereignty which deals with ‘greater autonomy’
to the Naga Tribal areas through autonomous districts, such agreements are facilitated
through the Sixth Schedule in the Indian Constitution. (Joshua, 2015)Further the
agreement of supra-state without territorial division of Assam, Manipur, Arunachal
Pradesh was presented by the Government in 2011. However, Manipur fears that any
such goal towards creation of such aspiration would further lead to the realization of
Nagalim as an actual entity thus has always refrained from signing. (Goswami, 2011)
2. The framework was signed at such a time when it was believed that it had the political as
well as the social support of the NSCN(IM) towards a path of conflict resolution.
3. NSCN (IM) leader Muivah and Isak Chisi wanted a quick solution for the promise upheld
by the government to preserve the culture, history, and traditions of the Nagas and
achieve a constitutional autonomy for the Naga inhabited areas. (Joshua, 2015)
 4. Modi Governments outright promise of solving the Naga Conflict within 18 months
timeframe was the major factor of signing the agreement in haste. (Joshua, 2015)
However, still in 2021 there seems no solution in place which will pacify both the sides.

A peaceful solution to the problem would be on the plank which is sustenance and public
support. The Naga leadership also hinted towards the next generation of Naga’s leaders to carry
forward the struggle for Nagalim. (Ahuja, 2021) Another way of recognizing the Naga Conflict,
as a political issue rather than an ethnic conflict.
The threat to the Indian government right now is from the resurgence of the Naga Movement but
the military strength will not be a fair play on the ground but through scientific, medical field as
the newer generation leaders are all educated in engineering, science and medical. The NCSC-
IM demands the issue of Nagaland should be treated in terms of politics and deliver a political
solution which was discussed in 1997 ceasefire between Indo-Naga political talks. Lastly, the
NSCN-IM reminded the government not to drag the issue more than it was supposed to and not
to attempt to undermine the Naga issue to failed agreements like Shillong Agreement. (Ahuja,
2021)

Way forward:
Cultural Autonomy is a way through which the Indian government can satisfy the
aspirations of Northeast India. Here, ethnically diverse areas are detached from the geographical
dimension. It would be granted to all ethnic groups, irrespective of their administrative boundary.
The nature of this autonomy is broad and can include religion, culture, language, social practices,
customary laws, and welfare matters (Singh :. M., 2013). However, the non-territorial framework
also favors the Naga demands of identifying the ‘unique history’ and culture. (Goswami, 2011)
It needs to be also noted that the term unique history has been subjected to scathing criticism,
that the term has no fixed definition and thus resides in the ambiguity. The term has more than
one interpretation. (Baruah, 2020) It must be considered that Indian Government cannot solve an
age-old issue with peace agreements, it must be noted that the 9-point agreement specifically
asked for Cultural Autonomy. (Singh :. M., 2013) The demand for separate flag and constitution
only ensures diversity to sustain under the broader strain of thought under the constitution of
India. It needs to be noted that India itself is a melting point of various culture, identity politics
plays a major role in sustaining the greater good for India, by identifying that all the states have
heterogenous population and not a homogenized population. (Kalbag, 2019)
The unique history and the Naga tribal culture are constituted under the form called Pan-Naga
Hoho, the Indian Constitution could legally recognize this under an act of the Indian Parliament.
Thus, this will take care of the interests of the Nagas of Nagaland and as well as Nagas living
outside Nagaland. The apex body may have representation of Nagas from all the Naga areas. A
central law that excludes the administrative and legislative jurisdiction of other states in which
Nagas reside, this will ensure avoidance of conflict between the Hoho and the State Jurisdiction.
The Hoho could further function as an advisory body on the Naga cultural affairs to both Center
and states. Such a framework would ensure longevity of the promise of upholding and protecting
the Naga culture, identity, and history. However, if such a demand is approved it must made sure
it stays within the “Basic Structure” of the constitution. (Sen, 2017)
The Disarming of the insurgent groups and absorption of insurgent cadres into state forces has
been a common proposition which has been made by the government repeated times and has
been done in past, but it needs to be strategically understood that this proposition bring internal
security threats. However, Assam Riffles, a central force, it is manned by different groups. (Sen,
2017) But any promise of surrendering of the insurgent cadres for government jobs in police,
army creates a wrong example in the state which suffers from unemployment problems, this
proposition was seen with the surrendered ULFA cadres in Assam. Instead, there should be
avenues which are made for self-employment, (Singh M. A., 2004) this will ensure sustenance in
the system and would not further create problems in the recruitment in the government jobs.
Hard-fencing the border areas along Nagaland, will never solve the problem, even now when
Myanmar is witnessing a military coup in the state, this is because both Myanmar and Nagaland
are dependent on each other for social-economic reasons, that said, livelihood and welfare would
be much adversely affected. Possible solution can account for smart vigilance and adopting
innovative ways of border security, particularly when trade and social exchanges are at stake.
(Sen, 2017)
Thus, the resolution to one of the oldest armed conflict in the Northeast would offer a way
towards resolving other ethnic-political conflicts which include, the Hmars, Karbis, Dimasas. In
such cases, the policy makers must not rush towards a solution to deliver a quick solution to the
people but rather a detailed solution to which will accommodate the aspiration of all the sectors
as well as the stakeholders in the conflict.

References
Ahuja, N. B. (2021). NSCN(IM) Warns Government against repeating past mistakes. Retrieved
from The Week: https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2021/03/25/nscn-im-warns-
government-against-repeating-past-mistakes.html

Baruah, S. (2020). Question about stakeholders in the Naga conflict still needs a satisfactory
answer. The Indian Express.

Goswami, N. (2011). “A Non-Territorial Resolution to the Naga Conflict”. IDSA Strategic.

Joshua, V. S. (2015). “Autonomous Councils Key to Naga Deal Success”. The Hindu.

Kalbag, C. (2019). How do Naga peace and Article 371A belong together? Retrieved from The
Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/the-needles-eye/how-do-
naga-peace-and-article-371a-belong-together/and-article-371a-belong-together/

Kalita, P. (2019). Times of India . Retrieved from Times of India :

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/khandu-will-not-part-with-any-
territory-for-nagalim/articleshow/71951792.cms

Kashyap, S. G. (2015). Towards the Govt-Naga peace accord: Everything you need to know. The
Indian Express.

Misra, U. ( 1978). The Naga National Question. Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 618-624.

Naga National Council- Akbar Hydari . (1947). The South Asia Terrorism Portal. Retrieved from
Peacemaker.un.org:
 https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN_470628_Naga-Akbar
%20Hydari%20Accord.pdf

Sen, G. (2017). Way Forward to a final Naga Settlement. Retrieved from IDSA :
https://idsa.in/idsacomments/way-forward-to-a-final-naga-settlement_gsen_310717

Singh, :. M. (2013). Revisiting the Naga conflict: what can ndia do to resolve this conflict? Small
Wars & Insurgencies, pp. 795-812.

Singh, B. (2017). The Economic Times| Politics. Retrieved from The Economic Times:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/wont-part-with-even-an-
inch-of-assam-sarbananda-sonowal/articleshow/61343558.cms?from=mdr

Singh, M. A. (2004). Challenges before Bodo Territorial Council. Economic and Political
Weekly, 784-785.

United Nations Peacemaker. (1975). Retrieved from The South Asia Terrorism Portal:
https://peacemaker.un.org/india-shillong-agreement75