UKHRUL: Naga historiography reveals that it is not merely a collection of internal, inter-tribal dynamics but is instead forged through external encounters. Its reflection point began when colonial rule started and climaxed in the post-independence era. With a specific political perspective, the Naga leaders often assert discursive dominance and drive the news cycle. It is used to inject into the discourse. The pillars of this hot narrative are often ethnic sub-identity, peripherality, and non-participation. The leaders often define the history of the Naga political movement by using those structural motifs. Ethnic sub-identity, as such a motif, is an incoherence in the Naga political movement. Because the movement bears collectivity rather than ethnic sub-identity. And the movement, anchored in collectivity, not in centrality alone, can’t peter out the peripherality. Finally, the history of the Naga political movement is not defined by participation or non-participation in initial foundational milestones like the episodes of 1929 or 1951.
Also read | CM, Titular King Inaugurate Hill Chiefs’ Guest House Ahead of Mera Hou Chongba
In this regard, the Nagas need to reheat their history by using cold data with the sole purpose of finding necessary factual rebuttals and to duly perceive its most likely adverse consequences. With regard to the polarizing charge of non-participation in the famous Naga plebiscite of 1951, from Manipur Nagas, it is historically refutable or assailable. The cold data for this charge is that plebiscitarian signatories of May 16, 1951 from the Southern Nagalim were five of them known so far. Late Mr. Ng Mono Monsang from Chandel district, Manipur (Dr. Rev. Wati Aier, Personal Communication, May 16, 2024), and Ashihe Khekho Mao, Senapati district, Manipur (Ukhrul Times, September 27, 2026). There were three more plebiscitary signatories from the Rongmei tribe of Manipur. Late Mr. Ramdikamang Pamei of Dailong, Tamenglong; late Mr. Mathiuhuam Riamei of Kakhulong, Imphal; and late Mr. Meirizinang Panmei of Ajuram, Tamenglong. (Lungsu Panmei and Gianingam Gangmei, Personal Communications, October 13, 2026. Supplemented the source in Rongmei Encyclopedia). This cold data formally confutes the hot narrative of non-participation from Manipur.
The most likely consequences of this hot narrative are presumably fourfold. First, it divides Naga ancestral areas by non-participation. It poses self-executing exclusion of the areas from the existing Naga homeland map. Think of the areas in Myanmar, some parts of Arunachal Pradesh, the Tuensang Frontier Division, and N.C. Hills. The hot narrative suggests that the mainland Naga areas like Kohima and Makhuchung only remained as primary Naga areas from the beginning. It is premised that not all Nagas from all areas of the present Nagaland state participated in those initial foundational milestones that were finalized before 1952.
Second, the hot narrative resets a framework to rewrite the history of Naga self-determination with a shrunk territorial area through a non-participation matrix. The hot narrative appears to be an ignoring mechanism for separating the history of the mainland from that of the periphery, with the exclusion of some groups in view.
Third, if stuck to non-participation as a criterion for determining Naga political history, it will divide the Naga tribes as participated or non-participated Nagas, whose outcome will be cripplingly disunited the Naga tribes.
Fourth, the hot narrative practically negates a universal process in ethno-nationalist movements. Of the four stages of usual ethno-nationalist movement, the Naga movement is in the last stage in which both sides are willing to abandon confrontation but are keen to find a settlement. Moreover, the Nagas are now in a situation that defies indefinite postponement. The hot narrative is observed to be a regressive process designed to incapacitate those achievements.
Also read | Ashang Kasar Seeks Governor’s Intervention Over Recruitment Delays, Electoral Irregularities
Then, how do we neutralize this deplorable determinant of non-participation? The universal principle is that acquiescence amounts to indirect representation. This is formalized under the principle of descriptive representation. Because the Nagas, wherever they are, feel the deciding body is a descriptive representative of the broader community. The body of signatories of 1929 and plebiscitary voters of 1951 itself serves as a psychological and cultural justification for public compliance. In this regard, the case of the North-Eastern region in the Indian nationalist movement may be cited. Except for Assam in the region, people of the region did not formally participate in the movement. But Indian independence, achieved under the Indian National Congress, serves as a similar justification for public compliance for many pro-Indian states. In the Naga context, public compliance works vibrantly, aligning with the foundational milestones of 1929, 1947, and 1951.
Contrary to these deplorable criteria such as participation, ethnic sub-identity, and peripherality, a host of historical milestones define the history of the Naga political movement. The milestones inspire public compliance while facing division and disunity. The history of the Naga political movement is written on the wheel of unity and division over time. The bottom line is that a historical milestone divides or unites the Nagas. Naga history may be classified into three historical spins. The initial spin (1918-1951) witnesses primarily oneness; (1950s – 1997) demonstrates conflict, fracture, and compromise; and finally, the radical spin (1997) exhibits an era of public, across-border emotional unity that preceded the chaos multiplication and parallelism.
In the event of any Naga historical milestone, there are some noticeable outcomes associated with it. First, context-dependent omission; second, ideological polarization; and finally, discursive dominance. Under this analytical framework, the history of the Naga political movement is sketched. First, the three initial foundational milestones from 1929 to 1951 committed context-dependent omission. Therefore, the Nagas from different areas did not participate in them. Here, while their acquiescence is amounted to their indirect representation, formalized under the principle of descriptive representation, the omission is often used in ideological polarization fomenting it in conflict situation. Then, the four major milestones from 1963-2015 committed the omission of non-signatory factions. This omission is different from the previous one, as it provides no mechanism for indirect or descriptive representation. For it has to operate through two channels: approval or acquiescence. This incoherence is the ground of ideological polarization in Naga society, starting even from the 9-point agreement. Because the diametrical forces of the moderates and the hardliners began taking shape in society. Both sides are in a war of ideas or discursive dominance for a paradigm shift.
Also read | Manipur Wins Global Excellence Award for Chak-Hao Innovation at BIRC 2026
In the case of the creation of Nagaland state or the 16-Point Agreement, claiming discursive dominance is anchored in the subtexts, referring to the fact that it is ” essentially an interim measure”, positing that it “in no way closes the door for further political negotiation”, and standing for “consolidation of contiguous Naga areas”. On the other hand, the Naga hardliners treat the creation of the state calling it to be “interim nature” is a “delusion”. Because it is a surrender of the historical rights of the Nagas. Here, room for “further political negotiation” aligns with the posture of the hardliners. Because Naga self-determination led by hardliners has spilled into conflict even after 1963. And it is substantiated by the Government of India’s talk with the hardliners, not with any existing state government even today, reinforcing the stand that the solution to the Naga political problem through the creation of the state is not final.
Then, about the Agreed Position and the framework Agreement, the discursive dominances of respective adherents and concurring parties demonstrate their respective ideological entrenchment, with which either party tries to bet on the public. The NSCN-IM’s bet appeals to the heart by relying almost entirely on the visceral, emotional weight of decades of conflict, historical identity, and collective trauma. On the other hand, NNPGs’ bet appeals to the head by sidestepping historical abstractions to make a highly rational, analytical case built on governance, economics, and some pragmatic prospects. These two lines of discursive dominance have reigned high in recent decades without comparable predictability.
This has caused a public dilemma, which is why the Naga public remains so painfully torn. As appealed to the head, the public recognizes NNPG’s pragmatic approach that offers an immediate exit from economic stagnation and lawlessness. The NSCN-(IM) appeals to heart, as it fears that if its maximalist stance is completely abandoned, the historic sacrifices of the Naga nationalist movement will be lost and its holy grail will be turned into a desideratum. This reflects Naga society or its contemporary political landscape. Naga society is often described as a society of paradoxes. The Nagas profess unity, yet tribalism reigns high; ‘Nagaland for Christ’ is eclipsed by fratricidal violence; its professed egalitarianism is clouded by sexism.
And the society is beset with the problems of centripetal and centrifugal forces. The integrative subtexts such as shared culture, common history of resistance, the plebiscite that inspires public compliance, and the emotional dream of a common future are masked by divisive subtexts like rigid intra-tribal boundaries, distinct dialects, regional politics, and competing factional leadership. The society also suffers from factional polarization, ethno-national ambivalence demonstrating a sense of oneness with parallel anxiety that pushes them back, without the ability to achieve one administrative and political structure. This conundrum is behind fractured solidarity which is while working for an overarching Naga cause that remains unbroken, without practical solidarity for one solution.
Therefore, what is a strategic imperative breeds unity and integration. If the Naga join forces with ethno-nationalists, Naga statesmen or stateswomen, luminaries whose discursive dominance promotes a superordinate ethno-political goal, many persistent ills will disappear. The hallmark of discursive dominance is putting the people above themselves, which will remain as a trailblazing legacy for the Naga people today and tomorrow. Therefore, it will be the continuing imperative duty for the partitioned Naga people to judiciously dissect any hot narrative or discursive dominance used to influence the ongoing terms of the Naga peace process by looking through a superordinate lens.
This stance paper is released on behalf of the Southern Naga People by the presidents of the Naga People’s Organisation, Chandel Naga People’s Organisation, Joint Tribe Council, Ashinpou Gangmei, former United Naga Council general secretary, and Dr Benjamin Gangmei, an independent researcher.
