In late October 2025, Thuingaleng Muivah, the veteran general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) or NSCN(IM), made a rare and emotionally charged return to his ancestral village of Somdal in Ukhrul district of Manipur after more than six decades in exile. The 91-92-year-old leader, often regarded as one of the last surviving icons of the Naga nationalist movement, used the occasion not just for a personal homecoming but to deliver a politically assertive message to the Indian government and the Naga people. Reiterating longstanding demands for sovereignty, a separate Naga flag and constitution, and the realisation of Greater Nagalim, Muivah warned that failure to recognise these aspirations could force a return to armed struggle.

This development has once again thrust the Naga political issue into the national spotlight, raising critical questions about the future of India’s longest-running peace process in the Northeast. As of July 2026, the stalemate persists, with implications that extend far beyond the hills of Nagaland and Manipur.

Historical Roots of the Naga Struggle

The Naga demand for self-determination traces its origins to the pre-independence era. Nagas, a diverse set of tribes with distinct languages, customs, and traditions inhabiting the rugged terrain along the India-Myanmar border, asserted their unique identity even before 1947. The Naga National Council (NNC) under Angami Zapu Phizo declared independence on August 14, 1947, one day before India. This led to decades of insurgency marked by armed resistance, heavy military operations, and significant loss of life on both sides.

The formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980 by Isak Chishi Swu, Thuingaleng Muivah, and S.S. Khaplang represented a more radical phase, blending Naga nationalism with socialist ideology and the motto “Nagaland for Christ.” Internal differences led to the 1988 split, creating the NSCN(IM) faction, which emerged as the most powerful and politically influential group.

Over the years, the demand evolved into the vision of “Nagalim” or Greater Nagaland — a unified homeland incorporating all Naga-inhabited areas across Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh. This territorial integration remains highly contentious, as it challenges the boundaries of existing states and has often sparked opposition, particularly in Manipur.

The 2015 Framework Agreement and Subsequent Deadlock

A major breakthrough appeared in August 2015 when the NDA government signed the Framework Agreement with NSCN(IM). The pact was hailed as a historic step towards a permanent solution. Details remain classified, but it was understood to recognise the unique history and aspirations of the Nagas while committing both sides to an inclusive settlement.

However, subsequent negotiations have faltered over key sticking points: the demand for a separate Naga flag and constitution, and the contours of Greater Nagalim. Muivah and his colleagues insist these were part of the agreed “letter and spirit” of the Framework Agreement and earlier understandings like the 2002 Amsterdam Joint Communiqué. The Government of India, on the other hand, has consistently maintained that there can be no compromise on sovereignty or territorial redrawing that affects other states. It has offered enhanced autonomy, cultural safeguards, and developmental initiatives within the Indian constitutional framework.

The ceasefire, in place since 1997, has held for the most part, allowing NSCN(IM) to function overground. Yet, the absence of a final accord has led to frustration, periodic flare-ups, and accusations of bad faith from both sides. Muivah’s recent speeches in Ukhrul echoed this sentiment strongly. He declared that Nagas “have not surrendered our free existence and sovereignty” and would defend it to the last. He stressed that any honourable solution must uphold Nagalim’s unique history, territory, flag, and constitution.

Context of Muivah’s Homecoming

Muivah’s return to Somdal was a deeply symbolic moment. Thousands gathered to welcome the ageing leader, with armed cadres providing security. The visit occurred against the backdrop of ongoing ethnic tensions in Manipur between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, adding another layer of complexity. While the Naga demand for Greater Nagalim is distinct, it intersects with broader questions of administrative autonomy and ethnic homelands in the state.

At 92 years old, Muivah represents the founding generation of the movement. His homecoming has been interpreted both as a victory lap for perseverance and as a final push to secure a legacy-defining agreement before leadership transitions become inevitable. Supporters view him as the unwavering guardian of Naga sovereignty, while critics argue that rigid maximalist positions have hindered practical progress.

Prospects of Resumed Armed Struggle

The question “Will armed struggle resume?” looms large. On one hand, Muivah’s warning carries weight given NSCN(IM)’s organisational strength and historical resolve. On the other, several factors make a full-scale return to arms unlikely in the near term:

• Changed Socio-Economic Landscape: Decades of relative peace have brought roads, education, jobs, and integration with the Indian mainstream. Many young Nagas prioritise economic opportunities, education, and governance reforms over insurgency.
• Factional Realities: Multiple Naga groups exist with differing agendas. Renewed conflict could exacerbate internal rivalries and alienate the public.
• Security and Diplomatic Posture: The Indian state has significantly strengthened its presence and counter-insurgency capabilities in the Northeast. At the same time, New Delhi prefers dialogue and has engaged various stakeholders, including the Naga National Political Groups (NNPG).
• Public Sentiment: While nationalist sentiments remain strong, war-weariness is evident. Church bodies and civil society often advocate for peaceful resolution.

Nevertheless, prolonged deadlock risks breeding disillusionment. Sporadic violence, extortion concerns, and youth radicalisation could emerge if talks collapse entirely. Analysts note that the movement’s ideological core — the assertion of sovereignty based on pre-colonial and pre-independence history — continues to resonate culturally even if operational militancy has diminished.

Broader Implications for Northeast India

The Naga issue is not isolated. It influences stability across the region, including Manipur’s fragile ethnic balance and border management with Myanmar. The Free Movement Regime (FMR) and fencing along the international border have added new points of contention. A satisfactory Naga solution could serve as a model for other ethnic aspirations in the Northeast, while failure might embolden hardline elements elsewhere.

For the Central government, the challenge lies in crafting a solution that honours Naga uniqueness without setting precedents that threaten federal structure. Enhanced financial packages, special administrative arrangements, or symbolic recognitions (short of full sovereignty) have been discussed in the past.

From the Naga perspective, the demand represents an existential quest for identity preservation amid rapid modernisation and demographic pressures. Muivah’s generation sees it as a sacred trust; younger leaders must navigate between aspiration and pragmatism.

As of July 2026, the Naga peace process remains in limbo. Muivah’s threat has not translated into immediate escalation, but it serves as a reminder of unresolved grievances. Both sides need to return to the negotiating table with flexibility — the government demonstrating political will for an honourable package, and NSCN(IM) acknowledging contemporary realities.

The Naga story is one of remarkable resilience. For nearly 80 years, the movement has survived military campaigns, internal divisions, and changing governments. A just and lasting solution would not only bring closure to one of India’s most protracted conflicts but also strengthen the idea of “Unity in Diversity” in the Northeast and beyond.

Whether Muivah’s latest assertions mark the beginning of a renewed push for dialogue or a hardening of positions will shape the region’s trajectory in the coming years. For now, the people of Nagaland and the wider Northeast continue to hope that wisdom and statesmanship prevail over confrontation, ensuring peace and prosperity replace the shadow of conflict.

About The Author