Declaration of Naga General Amnesty: A Missed Golden Opportunity for Unification

Some moments in history arrive only once, blessed with the power to heal old wounds, unify a fragmented people, and reshape futures. August 1, 1997 was one such moment.

When the historic Indo-Naga Ceasefire Agreement was signed on August 1, 1997, in Bangkok, Thailand, between the National Socialist Council of Nagalim Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) and the Government of India (GoI), history offered the NSCN-IM leadership a golden opportunity to consolidate alliances across all Naga political factions, both underground and overground, reaffirm their mandate, and negotiate with India from a position of unassailable authority. The group indeed ventured boldly on this mission of reunification. Yet the moment demanded transcending tactical strategy to embrace a transformative vision of collective healing – a crucible in which courage and humility could forge enduring solidarity.

In this context, the NSCN-IM announced a “General Amnesty.” Presented as a magnanimous gesture to close the wounds of the past, this well-intentioned effort aimed to steer the Naga movement toward internal cohesion for a peaceful Indo-Naga political settlement through negotiations. Yet, rather than serving as a bridge toward healing, it drove a deeper wedge into the heart of the struggle. There was a widely held sentiment among many Nagas that the NSCN-IM’s decision to position itself as the sole dispenser of forgiveness inadvertently cast rival factions – NSCN-K and NNC – in the role of moral transgressors requiring absolution. Naga elders and peace advocates contended that this stance overlooked the deeply intertwined history of mutual conflict, betrayals, and bloodshed, in which all factions, including the NSCN-IM itself, were perceived as participants. While framed as a gesture for peace, the amnesty was widely perceived by Nagas as asserting a posture of moral hierarchy, prioritizing unilateral authority over the humility and shared responsibility that the moment demanded. Perception proved as powerful as intention, and in this case, more enduring. Time has since revealed this truth with piercing clarity: true healing becomes impossible without confronting the weight of our shared history.

Exacerbating the perception issue, the term “General Amnesty” inherently implies a blanket pardon issued by an authority to others, usually for political offenses. This instinctively reinforced the view among many Naga civil society leaders and other factions’ leaders that the gesture masked a deeper inertia and an inability to embody the spirit of reconciliation. While intended to clean the collective slate, it was seen as functioning more like a proclamation of moral authority, prioritizing unilateral closure over mutual accountability.

Close observers of the Naga peace process then noted that the IM’s declaration appeared to sidestep a genuine reckoning with its own role in factional violence following the acrimonious split of the Naga National Council (NNC) in 1980 to form the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), and the subsequent 1988 split from NSCN to form what is known as National Socialist Council of Nagalim-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) – a history in which all factions, including the IM itself, were entangled. Despite this marred narrative of shared struggle, however, a distinguished Naga politician I interacted with emphasized, “We must honor the generation that bled for the Naga political struggle before the ceasefire’s dawn: leaders whose sacrifices, etched into the soul of our movement, stand unparalleled in the annals of Naga resilience. Their legacy compels us to rise above division.”

The Naga political landscape had grown profoundly complex following the 16-Point Agreement of 1960 and the Shillong Accord of 1975, pivotal events that catalyzed the NNC’s fragmentation in 1980. In a text message exchange about this same topic with a prominent Naga human rights advocate, he observed, “There were more such opportunities, and most factions also had the chance to open up or invite unity and reconciliation.” Yet, for me, the 1997 ceasefire stood as the most consequential moment, granting the NSCN-IM an unparalleled position to unify our collective political consciousness. He further noted, “What happened was committing too many blunders and mistakes from the Nagas’ end.” This line encapsulates a painful but necessary self-assessment. I also find his reflection, “We failed both on the political and reconciliation fronts,” to be a brutally honest and important framing of the current situation, as he rightly points out: “No effort was made to understand what a political nation is,” and “We did not focus on building our capacity to reason as a society.” This insight, to me, hits at the heart of the internal decay that has accompanied external manipulations. He concluded his remarks with emphasis: “It’s less about factions; it’s more about the fragmentation of Naga society.” This statement shifts the axis of the conversation, pointing us away from personalities and group rivalries toward the deeper socio-political fractures that have left our people adrift, disoriented, and easily manipulated.

Also read | The Urgency of Imaginative Naga Political Form

True healing, as I have learned from years studying conflict resolution and analyzing Naga factional politics, would have required an open, community-rooted process of mutual acknowledgment, honest conversation, and shared repentance: a circle of equals rather than a courtroom with one judge and many accused. The initiative might have resonated more deeply had it been paired with a candid admission of guilt, an expression of sorrow, and a sincere invitation to rebuild from the ruins together. From conversations across the Naga political spectrum, I believe what began as a visionary healing attempt instead deepened divisions, breeding perceptions of conditional inclusion in the political negotiations. The gap between intent and outcome birthed tragic irony: an effort to close wounds risked reopening them. Yet hindsight now grants us discernment with clarity: true rapprochement demands not just intent, but the wisdom to confront our missteps – a humility that eluded that pivotal juncture. Even so, the NSCN-IM’s effort to break retaliation’s cycle deserves acknowledgment for its intent, though its execution lacked restorative power for collective healing.

That moment brimmed with historic promise. The NSCN-IM had just secured political legitimacy as the sole representative in peace negotiations with the Government of India, a testament to its strategic acumen and enduring influence. With only a handful of factions active then, the opportunity to initiate genuine national healing appeared within reach. However, instead of unifying the house of Nagas, the IM’s actions were perceived by many as prioritizing dominance over consolidation. Rivals like the NSCN-K reportedly interpreted the unilateral pardon as “A maneuver to sideline them as competitors.” While the NNC, still scarred by the infamous Shillong Accord’s legacy, voiced skepticism. Adino’s piercing question, “Are Th. Muivah and Isak Chishi Swu free from wrongs that they are the ones to forgive us? To me, it is a serious matter as to who should repent and who to forgive,” crystallized broader doubts about moral hierarchy.

Here lay the fissure: the IM’s pursuit of unity inadvertently echoed the factionalism it now sought to dismantle. As the Naga politician I interacted with also pointed out, “Factionalism and tribalism, integral strands in the context of Naga identity, cannot eclipse the existential imperative of nation-building. In peacetime, our diverse factions and tribal royalties may command reverence; but when sovereignty hangs suspended, loyalty to the collective must supersede all else.” Elevating parochial pride betrays ancestral sacrifice, including that of those now pursuing Naga self-determination. Consequently, the ceasefire ignited suspicion, not solidarity, as trust, once fractured, proved irreparable, deepening the scars of division. Yet the NSCN-IM’s role as central negotiator underscores its enduring capacity to lead, a capacity that could still catalyze cohesion if paired with fervent embrace of inclusivity.

By linking its ceasefire with a top-down clemency, the NSCN-IM is widely perceived to have missed a pivotal opportunity to unite the splintered Naga political movement at a time when solidarity could have cemented and solidified its mandate to negotiate with India from a position of strength. Many Naga veterans and peace advocates I have spoken with regard this as a defining strategic miscalculation, one that conflated political authority with moral legitimacy while overlooking the fragile trust binding the Naga people.

In my assessment, had the IM explored a path rooted in traditional healing practices, where rivals gathered around bonfires, slaughtered Mithuns and Pigs for communal feasts, and entrusted tribe’s elders to mediate grievances, the movement might have re-forged solidarity. This approach could have been integrated with the Christian values shaping modern Naga identity, such as mass prayers and fasting for collective repentance and divine guidance. Embracing the group’s motto, “Nagalim for Christ,” might have facilitated bridging divides through unconditional rapprochement rather than conditional inclusion or exclusion. The absence of such an inclusive approach meant the ceasefire became a moment of unrealized potential, where the healing many Nagas yearned for remained elusive despite its possibility. Where ancestral wisdom prescribed feasts and honest dialogue to mend divisions, political realities manifested as maneuvering; where Scripture urged repentance and humility, practical constraints led to posturing.

Even so, the ceasefire remains a foundational milestone, marking a starting point for further progress. It could still inspire renewed efforts if paired with humility, openness, and a return to communal dialogue. Given the NSCN-IM’s perseverance and dedication to the Naga movement, despite challenges faced by other organizations on the Naga political principles, it is crucial to ensure their efforts yield meaningful outcomes towards a lasting peace. To achieve this, embodying reconciliation through collective actions – such as reviving traditional bonfire dialogues, communal feasts, fasting, and prayer – can help rebuild trust and foster a shared future.

The fallout from the General Amnesty declaration was both immediate and long-term. Factions that felt branded as morally culpable refused to participate in a ceasefire they perceived as casting them as guilty bystanders. Over time, splinter groups multiplied, including those emerging from within the NSCN-IM itself. While surface-level reasons for these fractures vary, their proliferation highlights underlying structural vulnerabilities in the Naga political movement – a collective political culture that struggles to balance pride and individualism with the discipline of consensus-building, alongside systemic gaps in conflict resolution frameworks that predate current factions.

Also read | A Naga Father’s Plea: End The Silence That Kills

Our Naga political ethos, steeped in courage, self-respect, and an unyielding quest for sovereignty, has historically thrived on simplicity and straightforwardness. Yet these traits, untampered by institutional mechanisms for dialogue and compromise, risk fueling perpetual fragmentation. Each splinter group reflects unresolved tensions between individual assertion and collective discipline, tensions woven into the fabric of our struggle. Moreover, even the NSCN-IM’s organizational resilience, while commendable, mirrors this duality: its strength lies in unity, but unity cannot endure without humility.

Compounding these challenges, India’s psychological manipulation of the NSCN-IM began during the 1997 ceasefire, when it strategically articulated that the group was the “sole legitimate representative of Naga aspirations” and that “it would engage only with them to resolve the Indo-Naga political question.” By dismissing rival factions like the NNC and NSCN-K as either illegitimate or under New Delhi’s direct control, India likely led the NSCN-IM to believe that collaboration with these groups was not essential to resolving the Indo-Naga political issues. This narrative of exclusivity could have arguably influenced the NSCN-IM leadership’s strategic outlook, fostering a degree of confidence that India would marginalize rival factions after a final settlement. Under this assumption, the group might have hesitated to genuinely consolidate alliances or unify the movement.

Unwittingly, this posture allowed India to fracture Naga solidarity, ensuring negotiations remained fragmented and politically manageable. It appears the NSCN-IM underestimated how factions it viewed as “India’s puppets” could become instrumental to New Delhi’s strategy. As peace talks advanced, India exploited this division, allowing factions to proliferate while publicly maintaining its commitment to NSCN-IM. By the time the 2015 Framework Agreement was signed, India had effectively weaponized newly formed groups like the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), undermining decades of progress. These factions, whether genuine representatives of Naga aspirations or state-sponsored, diluted the NSCN-IM’s influence and contested the Agreement’s legitimacy.

The NSCN-IM’s earlier reluctance to engage with rival factions may have weakened its negotiating position. India’s engagement with the NSCN-K in 2001, establishing a separate ceasefire despite its exclusive commitment to the NSCN-IM, further exposed contradictions in New Delhi’s approach. Upon reflection, India’s “sole representative” narrative is widely understood not as an endorsement, but as deliberate entrapment. As one senior Naga leader observed, “GoI leaders never intended to bring about a conclusive settlement; their strategy appeared to be designed to reduce the IM leadership’s leverage and ultimately dismantle the Naga movement.” To reclaim agency, the NSCN-IM must dismantle India’s psychological architecture of division, abandon the myth of exclusivity, and pursue unconditional unity with all factions. This is not a concession but a strategic imperative – a clever political maneuver to outwit India’s entrapment. Only collective solidarity can dismantle India’s psychological warfare, neutralize its divide-and-rule tactics, and achieve an honorable settlement to the Nagas’ struggle for self-determination. The lesson transcends factions, urging a reimagining of how we pursue political resolution, not just through resistance but by cultivating structures that honor dissent without fracturing solidarity.

The window of opportunity is not yet closed. The NSCN-IM retains the potential to unlock honorable reconciliation. By publicly and sincerely acknowledging past missteps, it could catalyze a healing process transcending factional divides. Grounded in the Christian principles of repentance and reconciliation, alongside Naga customary practices of communal accountability, this path offers a way to mend fractures and forge cohesion. Therefore, the path forward demands marshalling our shared faith in a common future, one where every tribe, faction, and voice aligns under the banner of nation-building, to achieve the objectives etched into our collective consciousness.

As the movement’s most influential organization, the NSCN-IM faces a pivotal choice: Will it wield its strength to amplify humility, courageously confront its flaws, and champion inclusivity? I stand with a growing chorus of Naga youth, elders, and peace advocates in believing that only through such steps can Nagas advance toward a resolution worthy of their collective struggle, one that is enduring, inclusive, and honors the sacrifices of generations. A house divided cannot stand, and the Naga political movement, as voices across the Naga hills urge, must reclaim the unity that once bound its spirit.

Also read | What Ikato Chishi Swu’s Departure from NSCN-IM Means for Naga Unity

Kuknalim!

Author’s Note & Disclaimer

This critique is written with profound respect for the Naga political struggle and unshakable solidarity with the aspirations of the Naga people. As an ardent supporter of Naga rights, I hold immense admiration for all leaders, past and present, who have sacrificed for this cause. Yet, after years of observing the factional deadlock, I feel compelled to voice perspectives widely felt but rarely articulated: critiques of missed opportunities, leadership shortcomings, and the urgent need for unity. These reflections are not born of malice but of love for the Naga nation and the quiet frustrations of many who hesitate to speak openly. Let me be unequivocal: this is not an indictment of individuals or groups but a constructive appeal to confront systemic challenges together.

To the NSCN-IM and all factions, I write as a fellow traveler who shares your longing for a resolution honoring every life lost and every generation’s hope. The call for accountability is not a rebuke but a plea rooted in our shared ethos of community and dialogue. While your sacrifices are undeniable, the reality remains, fragmented negotiations and exclusionary tactics have only emboldened those who exploit our disunity. This article mirrors concerns discussed privately among Nagas, a gap between our movement’s ideals and its execution. My aim is not to divide but to rekindle the spirit of unity that once defined us.

Let this be clear, I stand for reconciliation, for a day when factions unite into one unshakable front, and for a solution worthy of our collective struggle. These words are an act of faith, a plea to transform fractures into solidarity. May we find the courage to speak uncomfortable truths not to condemn, but to heal.

In solidarity and hope,
Markson V Luikham
Advocate of Peace and Unity

(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.)