Nagas Will Never Join Indian Union Nor Accept India’s Constitution: NSCN-IM’s Unyielding Stand
In a rare and revealing interview, Thuingaleng Muivah, the General Secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah), or NSCN (I-M), made a firm declaration: the Nagas will never be a part of the Indian Union, nor will they accept the Indian Constitution. His words echoed with the same uncompromising tone that has defined the decades-long Naga struggle for sovereignty, autonomy, and recognition of their unique identity.
A History of Resistance
The roots of the Naga movement run deep. Long before India gained independence in 1947, the Naga National Council (NNC) declared Naga independence on August 14, 1947 — a day before India’s own declaration of independence. This symbolic and political act set the stage for what would become one of the longest-running insurgencies in South Asia.
For the Nagas, the question has always been one of identity and political rights. They believe their distinct cultural, historical, and territorial identity was never meant to be subsumed within the framework of the Indian Union. This belief has fueled decades of armed conflict, peace talks, and ongoing political negotiations.
The Shillong Accord and the Rise of NSCN
One of the turning points in this turbulent history was the Shillong Accord of 1975, in which the NNC agreed to accept the Indian Constitution and surrender arms. However, this accord led to a severe backlash among many Nagas who saw it as a betrayal of the core ideals of the Naga movement. Out of this discontent emerged the NSCN in 1980, later splitting into factions, with the NSCN (I-M) becoming the most powerful and influential.
Led by Isak Chishi Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah, the NSCN (I-M) sought a solution based on the recognition of Naga sovereignty, and more importantly, the integration of all Naga-inhabited areas across northeastern India into a unified political entity they call “Nagalim.”
The Framework Agreement of 2015
The Indian government and the NSCN (I-M) reached a major milestone in August 2015, when a “Framework Agreement” was signed under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. While the details of the agreement were kept confidential, it was hailed as a breakthrough in the decades-long conflict.
Yet, the progress soon stalled. The NSCN (I-M) insisted on two non-negotiable conditions for any final settlement: a separate Naga flag and a constitution. For the Indian government, these demands crossed a red line, especially after the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, which revoked that state’s special status.
Muivah’s Firm Stand
In his 2019 interview, Muivah reiterated these demands and voiced his discontent with the Indian government’s approach to the talks. He accused R. N. Ravi, then the interlocutor and Governor of Nagaland, of “betraying” the NSCN (I-M) by allegedly backtracking on the commitments made during the signing of the Framework Agreement.
Muivah also condemned Naga civil society groups and other Naga political organizations that had shown willingness to move forward without insisting on a separate flag and constitution. “They are traitors,” he said, adding that any resolution that undermines the foundational principles of the Naga movement would not be acceptable to the people.
“Nagas were never Indians and will never be,” he stated emphatically. “We have our own history, our own culture, our own political rights. How can we accept something that denies our very existence?”
The Road Ahead
The NSCN (I-M)’s position presents a critical challenge to India’s efforts to bring peace to the Northeast. While successive Indian governments have made attempts at negotiation and reconciliation, the fundamental divide between the Indian state’s position and the NSCN (I-M)’s demands remains vast.
This impasse has also divided public opinion in Nagaland. While many support the NSCN (I-M)’s stand on identity and sovereignty, others are weary of the prolonged conflict and yearn for peace and development. The emergence of other Naga political groups willing to negotiate within the Indian constitutional framework has added further complexity to the situation.
The words of Thuingaleng Muivah underline the enduring tension between the aspirations of a people and the framework of a modern nation-state. The NSCN (I-M)’s stand may appear intransigent to some, but to the Nagas who support the movement, it is a fight for survival, dignity, and identity.
Whether a final solution can be reached that respects both India’s sovereignty and the unique identity of the Nagas remains to be seen. For now, the NSCN (I-M)’s message is clear: without a separate flag and constitution, there will be no peace accord. And without recognition of Naga sovereignty, the question of becoming part of India does not arise.
About The Author
