NSCN-IM Army Chief Anthony N. Shimray Calls Naga Struggle a “Holy War” – What It Reveals About the Future of the Naga Peace Process
In a rare and deeply revealing interview with Northeast Live, National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) Army Chief Anthony N. Shimray spoke bluntly about the ideology, the past, and the future of the Naga movement—describing the decades-old insurgency not merely as political agitation but a “righteous war” rooted in Naga identity and spirituality.
Shimray, one of the most influential voices in the Naga armed movement, did not speak like a typical underground commander this time. His tone was of conviction and faith. His message was clearly intended to speak to Nagas and non-Nagas alike: the Naga struggle, for the NSCN-IM, is not a crime, not a rebellion, but a sacred responsibility.
The Framing: A “Holy War” Rather than a Separatist Insurgency
Shimray used a striking phrase: “Our movement is a holy war”. This is not ordinary rhetoric. Historically, NSCN-IM has always used political arguments—unique history, self-determination, and Naga sovereignty. But this new framing takes the conflict beyond political negotiation and presents it ethically and spiritually. It signals a new phase of Naga narrative building—tying nationalism directly with moral legitimacy and faith.
For the NSCN-IM, the struggle is not merely about political lines on a map. It is about defending identity, land, and cultural destiny. By calling it a “holy war”, Shimray is telling the younger generation of Nagas that this fight was never cheap, never transactional, never about mere power sharing. It was—and continues to be—a sacred obligation passed from one generation to the next.
The Peace Process: A Long Road with India, but Still not Settled
Shimray also addressed the complicated peace talks with New Delhi. He reminded viewers that NSCN-IM entered into a ceasefire and negotiations out of sincerity. The Framework Agreement of 2015 was hailed as historic. But ten years have passed and the final settlement remains distant.
According to Shimray’s view, the greatest obstacle is not the Nagas—but India’s approach. He believes certain agencies in Delhi—RAW, NIA, and sections of the military bureaucracy—still treat NSCN-IM as a security threat rather than a political stakeholder. This mindset, he says, damages trust and slows down the resolution.
He made it clear: NSCN-IM will not accept any solution that treats Nagas as merely another Indian tribal group. They want recognition of the Nagas as a people with history, rights, and political uniqueness.
Not Pure Separation: A Partnership on Equal Footing
Interestingly, Shimray’s vision is not necessarily total disconnection from India. He spoke of a partnership—if it is based on respect. He wants Nagas to have ownership over their land and resources, and a political structure that reflects Nagas as a nation—not as a subordinate community.
This is the nuance that has often been lost in mainstream media. NSCN-IM’s idea is not always full secession—it is a dignified co-existence, but on the foundation of political dignity and historical truth.
What This Means for the Northeast Region
Shimray’s interview is more than soundbites. It is a crucial window into what NSCN-IM leadership is thinking right now.
- It shows that the leadership is still committed to ideological foundations.
- It shows that faith and nationalism are merging into a powerful narrative.
- It shows that NSCN-IM feels India must do more, not militarily, but intellectually and politically, to understand the Naga cause.
The stakes are high. Naga areas spread across Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and parts of Assam. Any shift in rhetoric affects delicate ethnic balances—especially in Manipur, where Naga and Meitei tensions have been rising over territorial identity.
If a peace settlement must happen—and one day it must—it will need more than administrative formulas and bureaucratic signatures. It will need respect. It will need empathy. It will need a political imagination that sees Nagas as partners rather than problems.
Shimray’s interview, therefore, is not just a speech. It is a reminder that the peace process is not a file to be closed. It is a struggle rooted in history, faith, and identity—one that requires not domination, but dialogue.
This is why, even after decades of guns, negotiations, arrests, operations, and agreements—the Naga issue remains alive. Because for the Nagas of NSCN-IM, this is not just politics. It is, as Shimray said, a “holy war”.
A struggle of belief. A struggle of dignity. A struggle that they believe carries the weight of history itself.
About The Author
