Bound by Blood, Divided by Borders: Naga Identity, Political Betrayal, and the Fight for Justice

BEFORE BRITISH colonization, the Nagas lived in an undivided, self-governing region that spanned what is now Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur (India), and the Sagaing Region (Myanmar). The Nagas had their own distinct cultural, social, and political structures, independent of external control. However, with the advent of British expansion in the 19th century, the colonial rulers, driven by administrative convenience rather than ethnic or historical realities, arbitrarily divided Naga-inhabited areas between British India and Burma.

The Treaty of Yandabo in 1826 marked the beginning of this division, as it established the boundary between British India and Burma following the First Anglo-Burmese War. Over the years, colonial policies deepened this fragmentation, culminating in 1937, when Burma was officially separated from British India, further cementing the division of Naga territories. Despite this, the Nagas continued to live according to their traditional ways, largely unaffected by the artificial boundary lines drawn by colonial rulers.

When India gained independence in 1947 and Burma in 1948, the newly formed governments retained the boundaries imposed by the British without reconsidering their impact on the Naga people. Jawaharlal Nehru and the Indian leadership were fully aware that the Naga homeland extended across both nations, yet they made no effort to rectify this colonial injustice. The Nagas were never consulted, their voices ignored, and their right to self-determination dismissed. This led to their homeland being permanently split between two sovereign nations (India and Myanmar), a historical betrayal that have left with profound consequences for the Naga people.

Editorial | Nehruvian approach to the Nagas and Northeast India

The final blow came with the India-Burma (now Myanmar) Border Agreement, signed on March 10, 1967. Nehru, driven by his entrenched hostility toward the Naga political movement, deliberately agreed to the deal, ensuring that Naga territories would remain divided forever. His actions were not those of a leader seeking justice but of one determined to cripple the Naga struggle and weaken their demands for self-rule. At the time, India was in a much stronger position than Myanmar to influence the resolution of this issue, yet the Nehru-led Congress government chose silence and inaction, effectively ensuring the permanent fragmentation of Naga lands.

Nehru, driven by his inflated ideals and diplomatic maneuvering, severed the Naga ancestral land from its people, handing it over to Burma without seeking the consent of the indigenous Nagas.

 It was a betrayal wrapped in the garb of high politics, a decision made without regard for the people whose roots ran deep in that sacred soil.

This calculated political maneuver not only undermined the Naga people’s historical claims but also intensified their suffering in the years that followed. What ensued was a dark chapter of state-sponsored oppression, human rights violations, and brutal military crackdowns against the Nagas. Under the leadership of Nehru and later Indira Gandhi, the Indian government unleashed repressive security operations that saw thousands of Naga villages burned, civilians tortured, and thousands subjected to unspeakable atrocities. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was ruthlessly imposed, granting the Indian military sweeping powers to suppress the Naga political movement with impunity.

This tragic course of history was not merely the result of diplomatic negligence but a premeditated effort to silence and subjugate the Naga people. Nehru’s deep resentment toward Naga leaders and their aspirations for self-determination fueled policies that aimed to eradicate their resistance, crush their identity, and permanently handicap their political movement. The wounds inflicted by these betrayals remain unhealed, as the Naga people continue to fight for recognition, justice, and the reunification of their ancestral homeland.

And what did Nehru leave us in return? A mere token—Free Movement Regime—a paltry consolation, akin to offering a child a piece of candy to quiet his wails after snatching away his prized possession. It was not a gesture of goodwill but an attempt to pacify, to appease, to make the Naga forget the loss of what was rightfully theirs.

Editorial | Miscalculations on India-Myanmar Border Fencing will result in a self-inflicted wound against national interests

But even that, the last remnant of their historical connection, is now under threat. The powers that be seek to strip away what little freedom remains, closing the doors that once allowed the Nagas to walk the paths their ancestors tread. What was given as a token is now being taken away with impunity, leaving the Nagas with nothing but a severed past and a future dictated by those who neither understand nor care for their heritage.

The Nagas have every right to oppose the scrapping of the Free Movement Regime (FMR), for it is not merely a policy decision—it is a calculated insult, a fresh wound in addition to decades of historical betrayal and suffering. The FMR, though arbitrary in its conception, was at least a small recognition of the deep familial, cultural, and historical ties that binds the Naga people across artificial borders. To strip it away now is to rub salt into wounds that have never healed, to reinforce the brutal legacy of division imposed upon the Nagas by colonial rulers and later cemented by the Indian and Burmese states.

For decades, successive Indian governments have unleashed unimaginable atrocities upon the Nagas. Hundreds of villages were burned to the ground, men and women were tortured, and innocent lives were snuffed out under the shadow of draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The Naga identity, their culture, and their traditions—everything that makes them who they are—have been systematically eroded. The state did not simply seek to govern the Nagas; it sought to break their spirit, to strip them of agency, severe them from their past, and deny them the future they rightfully deserve.

The cruelest act of all was the division of the Naga homeland, a crime against history and justice. The Nagas were never asked, never consulted when their ancestral lands were carved up between India and Myanmar, tearing families apart and uprooting communities that had thrived for thousands of years. This division was not just geographical; it was an assault on their very existence. The FMR, imperfect as it was, offered a small reprieve, a fragile bridge across borders that should never have existed in the first place.

And now, even that is being taken away. The unholy alliance between India and Myanmar—a partnership built on political expediency rather than justice—has once again come at the expense of the Naga people. The Nagas have been made sacrificial lambs on the altar of their convenience, their voices silenced, their rights dismissed. If the FMR is revoked, it will not simply be a policy shift; it will be yet another chapter in the long history of oppression and betrayal the Nagas have endured.

Editorial | Why Zo Reunification Org is Threatening Independence Over Border Fencing and FMR Revocation?

The Nagas will not remain silent.

They will not stand by as their existence is erased, nor allow their rich history to fade into oblivion.

They will not allow their future to be dictated by those who neither understand nor respect their identity. The Naga spirit has endured for centuries, and no border, no government, no decree can erase who they are. Their struggle is not just for the right to move freely—it is for the right to exist, to be whole again, to reclaim what was unjustly taken from them. Despite strong opposition from various quarters of Naga society to the scrapping of the Free Movement Regime (FMR), if the present government chooses to impose a ban, it will cause far more harm than good.

Such a decision would not only deepen the wounds of historical injustice but also create further chaos within Naga society, severing the last remaining ties that bind families and communities across arbitrary borders. The Free Movement Regime, flawed as it may be, has been a lifeline—one that acknowledges, however minimally, the deep-rooted cultural, social, and familial connections of the Naga people. To strip it away now would be an act of deliberate provocation, one that would fuel further discontent and resentment among patriotic Nagas who have already endured decades of division and oppression. It would not pacify the people; rather, it would ignite an even stronger resolve to resist policies that seek to erase their very identity and weaken their movement. The government must recognize that the borders imposed by colonial rulers can never define the identity, spirit, or destiny of the Naga people, nor can they extinguish the spirit of a people who have fought relentlessly to preserve their heritage.

Both India and Myanmar may attempt to silence the Nagas, erecting barriers that divide their unified family into two, and may use force to suppress the voices of the Naga—but they can never extinguish the unyielding spirit of one Naga, one people, and one family. Their identity is not something that can be erased by borders or broken by oppression; it is ingrained in thier very blood, passed down through generations like an eternal flame that refuses to die.

If the ban is imposed, the consequences will be far-reaching. It will widen the rift between the Naga people and the state, erode what little trust remains, and push the younger generation further toward radical disillusionment. The more the government tightens its grip, the stronger the resistance will grow. The voice of the Naga people cannot be silenced by restrictions—it will only rise louder in defiance.

Kuknalim !

Editorial | How to Un-Govern the Borderland: India’s Troubled Northeast Borders Needs a New Regime of Movement (P-II)

The author is a freelance writer, and can be reached at liangmai367@gmail.com. 

(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ukhrul Times. Ukhrul Times values and encourages diverse perspectives.)