KOHIMA/UKHRUL, Nov 15: The question of who has the right to speak on the Naga political issue has come sharply into focus following a strong rebuttal by the Global Naga Forum (GNF) to remarks made by senior Naga leaders from the Nagaland state at a consultative meeting of the Central Nagaland Tribes Council (CNTC) in Dimapur on November 11.
The GNF, a prominent Naga civil advocacy forum comprising members from Naga-inhabited areas across Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland and Myanmar, with members based across the globe, has strongly rebutted remarks attributed to former Nagaland chief secretary Alemtemshi Jamir, and retired IAS officer K.K. Sema, questioning the historical foundations of Naga collective identity and the place of Tangkhuls and Southern Nagas in discussions concerning Nagaland’s future.
ALSO READ: Four Killed in Ambush by suspected Kuki Militants along NH-102 Imphal-Ukhrul Road
In a public statement issued on November 14, titled “The Burden of Truth: Why State Borders Can Never Divide the Naga Family”, the GNF challenged the assertion that Nagas had little collective identity before 1917 and rejected the reported ultimatum by retired IAS officer K.K. Sema, who reportedly told Southern Nagas to either comply with his demands for transparency or “GET OUT”. The remarks were made during a consultative meeting of the CNTC, according to the GNF.
The GNF said the use of administrative state boundaries to question the place of fellow Nagas in their ancestral homeland undermines the historical foundations of Naga unity.
Questioning the authority to exclude Nagas from the south, east or north, the GNF asked how an administrative boundary drawn following the 1960 16-Point proposal and the creation of Nagaland in 1963 could become a basis for treating fellow Nagas as outsiders.
The statement also questioned the selective invocation of the 16-Point proposal while disregarding its Point 13, which provided for the integration of contiguous Naga-inhabited areas.
Rejecting the suggestion that collective Naga identity was a recent development, the GNF maintained that Naga political and social organisation was rooted in autonomous, self-governing village republics long before the emergence of modern administrative boundaries.
It argued that decentralised village governance did not mean the absence of a wider collective identity, pointing to shared clan, phratry and tribal connections extending across villages and present-day state and national boundaries.
The GNF then cited historical interactions among Nagas in Upper Assam during the 1830s and 1880s, participation in frontier expeditions of 1911–12, the mobilisation of more than 2,000 men from different Naga tribes for the First World War Labour Corps, the formation of the Naga Club in 1918 and the submission of the historic 1929 memorandum to the Simon Commission.
OPINION | The Naga Club Memorandum of 1929
These developments, it said, demonstrated that inter-tribal solidarity and collective political consciousness existed before the formation of the Naga Club.
The GNF also drew a distinction between the 1947 Nine-Point Agreement negotiated between the Naga National Council and Governor Sir Akbar Hydari and the 1960 16-Point proposal submitted by the Naga People’s Convention.
The GNF maintained that the two arrangements represented fundamentally different political positions, arguing that the 1947 agreement recognised Naga rights over their lands, customs and administrative unity.
It further recalled the May 16, 1951 voluntary plebiscite and the role of Tangkhul Naga parliamentarian Rishang Keishing, who advocated the integration of the Naga Hills, Tuensang and Tirap in Parliament.
The GNF questioned how Nagaland’s statehood could be invoked to exclude Tangkhuls and Southern Nagas while disregarding the wider historical sacrifices and political aspirations of Nagas across different territories.
Clarifying its position on transparency, the GNF said it stood firmly for integrity, transparency and ethical accountability across public institutions and leadership.
However, it stressed that such demands must be based on universal principles and institutional reform rather than personal attacks or the collective scapegoating of the Tangkhul community and Southern Nagas.
The GNF expressed particular concern over the impact of exclusionary rhetoric on younger generations, warning that portraying fellow Nagas across administrative boundaries as adversaries could create divisions that might take generations to overcome.
Calling for mature and dignified public discourse, the Naga advocacy forum urged tribal councils, senior citizens, intellectuals and public figures to debate political differences rigorously while demanding transparency from all leaders without fear or favour.
It cautioned against allowing administrative boundaries to determine the limits of Naga identity and ancestral belonging, maintaining that the strength and future of the Naga people rest on solidarity.
“No external power can ever break a people who refuse to disown one another,” the GNF stated.
