“A Solution for All Nagas, Not Just Nagaland”: Young Leaders Chart a New Course for the Indo-Naga Peace Process
The decades-long Indo-Naga political conflict—a struggle marked by insurgency, negotiation, and deep-seated identity aspirations—is at a critical juncture. While peace talks have produced at least two separate agreements, the lack of a final, unified solution continues to fuel public restlessness and internal factionalism.
In a recent podcast episode of The Lungleng Show, two influential young leaders of the Naga national movement offered a powerful, pragmatic perspective on the path forward. Isak Sumi, Ad hoc Convener and General Secretary of the NSCN (K), and P. Tikhak, General Secretary and Ad hoc Convener of the NSCN (R), argued vehemently for convergence over conflict, emphasizing that the future of the Naga people demands unity and a willingness to be pragmatic in the face of evolving political realities. Their core message is clear: the solution must be for all Nagas, irrespective of artificial boundaries.
The Imperative of Unity: Moving Past Factionalism
The conversation began by addressing the deep fissures within the Naga political landscape, which have plagued the movement since splits like the 1975 Shillong Accord and the crisis of 1988. Sumi noted that the movement has been tragically “commercialized” and even “criminalized” in recent history, losing the pious intent of its founders.
Both leaders, despite belonging to different factions within the umbrella of the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), stressed the need to reclaim the movement’s integrity and put an end to the “exclusive narrative” that claims one group is more legitimate than another.
“For the last 30, 40 years, we have been trying to justify our own position,” Sumi stated, “but finally at the end of the day, we must all understand that we have the same issue requiring the same solution covering all the Naga areas.”
They credited the intervention of civil society organizations, such as the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) and tribal bodies, for fostering an environment where leaders can begin to reason together. Tikhak affirmed that the core struggle now is to overcome bitterness and create a “shared future” where the interest of the Naga people takes precedence over factional rivalry. He added that the purpose of joining the movement was to serve the people, not to cling to a position, boldly stating he would willingly relinquish his own post if it served the cause of unity.
A Pan-Naga Vision: Regional Autonomy and Inclusivity
A crucial part of the discussion centered on how any future solution can be truly pan-Naga, addressing the communities living outside the administrative boundaries of Nagaland state. P. Tikhak, representing the Nagas of Arunachal Pradesh (specifically Tirap, Changlang, and Longding districts), addressed the apprehension that the Agreed Position (signed by the NNPGs with the Government of India) might be Nagaland-centric.
Tikhak categorically denied this, confirming that the agreement explicitly includes provisions for Nagas in neighboring states. For Arunachal Pradesh, the proposal is to establish a Regional Autonomous Territorial Council (ATC).
This ATC, he explained, would be structured to ensure that all rights and dignities that a Naga person should enjoy are secured, granting them greater self-governance and protection of identity. Tikhak detailed the “pathetic” situation in his home area, where perceived “stepmotherly attitude” from the state government and border complexities have resulted in extreme hardship. For him, the ATC is a mechanism to secure a practical future for these suffering communities.
Sumi reiterated the consensus: “The issue is between the Government of India and the Nagas, not between the Government of India and the Nagas of Nagaland alone.”
From Sovereignty to Coexistence: The Pragmatic Choice
The most challenging aspect of the negotiations—the demands for complete sovereignty and integration—was tackled with striking pragmatism. The leaders acknowledged the historical rejection of offers that fell short of sovereignty, citing the Swiss Proposal of 1967 as a key example that was dismissed by nationalists but later understood by some to be a more “pragmatic way of resolving the issue.”
Today, both sovereignty and integration of all contiguous Naga areas are viewed as “out of question” and “not possible at this juncture” by the Government of India. The leaders argue that pursuing these demands rigidly, without acknowledging geopolitical realities, means missing a crucial opportunity.
“What we have today may not be available tomorrow,” Sumi observed, emphasizing that a society cannot remain stagnant. He proposed navigating the complexity by finding a “middle part”—a solution that is neither a betrayal of history nor a compromise of the future. The current path, they maintain, is not about favoring India, but about engaging in a process of “give and take” to achieve peaceful coexistence with greater autonomy for self-governance.
Tikhak stressed the importance of being with India, stating, “We cannot change our neighbor… We don’t have a choice.” He holds that a day may come in the future when the aspiration for complete sovereignty could be revisited, potentially through democratic processes like a referendum, similar to the Good Friday Agreement in the UK.
The Constitutional Challenge and the Way Forward 💡
The final hurdle discussed was the institutionalization of the solution, specifically the demand by some groups for a separate constitution outside the Indian framework.
P. Tikhak offered a reasoned response: “As long as we have to be with India, there cannot be two constitutions in a country.” However, he stressed the negotiators’ intent to safeguard the agreements by ensuring they are enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The key, he noted, is to guarantee that the constitutional provision cannot be arbitrarily amended or abrogated by future parliaments, regardless of the party in power. This would provide the necessary judicial and legal protection for the Naga people’s unique political arrangement.
Isak Sumi advised against “preempting those issues” like the constitution, arguing that they should be addressed once the political agreement is finalized. The priority, he concluded, is sincerity in tackling the political issue itself. Once all negotiating parties agree to a resolution, the complexities of sovereignty, integration, and constitutional modalities will “fall in line.”
The message from these young leaders is a call for a unified, matured, and politically courageous approach: set aside factional egos, be pragmatic, and work collectively to secure a sustainable future for all Naga people, starting with the tangible steps of greater self-governance today.
About The Author
