May 2026
In a dramatic homecoming after more than five decades, Thuingaleng Muivah, the ageing general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) or NSCN(IM), returned to his ancestral village of Somdal in Ukhrul district, Manipur, in late October 2025. The emotional visit, his first in over 60 years, quickly transformed into a platform for reaffirming long-standing Naga demands, including full sovereignty, a separate national flag and constitution, and the vision of a unified “Nagalim” or Greater Nagaland.
At public events in Ukhrul and Somdal, the 90-plus-year-old leader, often regarded as one of the last founding figures of the Naga movement, delivered assertive messages. Speaking through his deputy V.S. Atem at times, Muivah declared that Nagas have “not surrendered” their sovereignty. He stated unequivocally: “Nagas are Nagas, Indians are Indians,” and warned that the Indian government’s failure to honour the 2015 Framework Agreement and the earlier Amsterdam Joint Communiqué in “letter and spirit” could force the group back to armed struggle.
Core Demands Reaffirmed
Muivah’s speeches centred on several non-negotiable elements:
- Sovereignty and Unique History: The NSCN(IM) insists that the 2015 Framework Agreement officially recognises the “unique history,” sovereignty, and territory of the Nagas. Any final settlement must respect this foundation.
- Separate Flag and Constitution: Described as the “soul of our nation,” these symbols of nationhood remain essential. Muivah reiterated that they are non-negotiable and form the basis for any honourable political agreement.
- Greater Nagalim: The integration of all Naga-inhabited areas spanning Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and parts of Myanmar into a single administrative entity continues to be a central demand. This vision directly challenges the territorial integrity of existing states, particularly Manipur.
The veteran leader accused the Government of India of betraying the spirit of the agreements signed since the 1997 ceasefire and of employing a “divide and rule” strategy. He asserted that the NSCN(IM) remains prepared for any eventualities, including a return to the battlefield, if its core concerns are ignored.
Historical Context and Current Stalemate
The Naga insurgency ranks among India’s longest-running ethnic conflicts, dating back to the 1950s. After decades of violence and negotiations, the 2015 Framework Agreement—signed in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi—was initially hailed as a breakthrough. However, its full contents remain undisclosed, leading to divergent interpretations between the Centre and NSCN(IM).
While the Indian government has concluded agreements with other Naga factions (such as the NNPG), the NSCN(IM), the most influential group, has rejected partial solutions. Nearly 28–29 years into the ceasefire, talks remain deadlocked. Muivah’s recent statements reflect deep frustration over the lack of progress.
Challenges and Realism
Opposition to Greater Nagalim remains fierce, especially in Manipur, where any territorial reconfiguration is viewed as an existential threat. The Indian government has consistently maintained that solutions must remain within the country’s constitutional framework and federal structure, ruling out full sovereignty or symbols that imply independent nationhood.
Internal Naga dynamics add further complexity. Factionalism persists among various groups, and not all Naga voices support the NSCN(IM)’s maximalist stance. Younger generations in Nagaland often prioritise development, peace, and practical autonomy over renewed conflict.
Analysts largely interpret Muivah’s rhetoric as a high-stakes negotiating tactic rather than an immediate call to arms. The group’s military capacity has significantly diminished over the years, and the human and economic costs of resuming hostilities would be enormous for all sides.
Outlook
Muivah’s homecoming has rekindled attention on the Indo-Naga peace process but also underscored its fragility. As one of the world’s oldest active rebel leaders makes his stand from his birthplace, the ball remains in New Delhi’s court. A lasting resolution likely demands creative federal accommodations—perhaps enhanced autonomy with cultural safeguards—short of redrawing maps or conceding sovereignty.
Without mutual compromise, the risk of prolonged stalemate or sporadic tensions persists. For now, the Naga issue continues to test India’s ability to balance national integrity with the aspirations of its diverse northeastern communities. Monitoring responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs and further NSCN(IM) statements will be crucial in the coming months.
About The Author
