THE ONGOING CONTROVERSY over Dr. S. C. Jamir began with his recent political choices. The immediate concern arose from eyewitness accounts reporting that Dr. S. C. Jamir and Manipur deputy chief minister Nemcha Kipgen travelled on the same Dimapur–Delhi flight on 9 September 2026, followed by reports that they left the airport together under a common security-escort arrangement.
The episode, witnessed by most of the co-passengers on that flight, naturally raises questions. Travelling on the same flight may itself be coincidental, but a coordinated onward movement under a common security arrangement would ordinarily involve prior logistical coordination and orchestration among several people from both camps. In the present atmosphere of serious Naga–Kuki tensions, Nagas are therefore entitled to ask what circumstances produced such an arrangement and how many political interactions preceded such coordination.
Manipur deputy chief minister Nemcha Kipgen, wife of KNF chief Thangboi, has been widely described beyond any contest as the kingpin or mastermind of the proxification and weaponisation of narco-radicalised Nomad Kuki mercenaries, with direct political patronisation from the MHA. Given that background, any apparent political proximity between the sworn Naga enemy Nemcha and a former senior Naga leader was inevitably going to attract scrutiny.
The larger question is: Why did S. C. Jamir coordinate with Nemcha prior to meeting RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in New Delhi on 10 September 2026 and discussing the Naga political issue? Jamir subsequently explained that he approached Bhagwat because of the RSS leadership’s influence with the BJP-led Government of India and urged his intervention to dissolve the democratically elected State Government and bring about an early political settlement for the Nagas.
Also Read: Eight Decades of Struggle—But Where Are We Today?
The Naga negotiators have unequivocally indicated that they were informed by the inner circle of the elected BJP Government that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat personally compelled the Modi Government to backtrack from the agreed competencies of the 2015 Framework Agreement.
But whether one agrees with Jamir’s judgment or not, one fact remains clear:
He chose whom to meet, what political channel to use and how to intervene in the Naga political process.
Other Nagas therefore had every right to question those choices.
And the reaction that followed did not emerge from nowhere.
At the September 16 Political Affairs Committee consultation, NSCN (IM) leaders V. S. Atem and R. H. Raising publicly questioned Jamir’s mandate and political standing to speak on the Naga issue. Ao Senden subsequently intervened, condemned those remarks, demanded their withdrawal within 15 days and warned that failure to do so could compel it to take its “own course of action.”
That is where the larger and more important debate begins.
Was it really necessary for Ao Senden to elevate criticism of one former leader into an institutional confrontation?
Jamir has every right to speak. But the right to speak is not a right to political deference.
Atem and Raising also have the right to reject his political position.
Other Nagas have the right to conclude that Jamir’s views are outdated, unhelpful, politically irrelevant or simply wrong.
If Atem dismisses Jamir’s mandate, what fundamentally changes?
If Raising rejects his political relevance, what collapses?
Does the Naga political process stop?
Does the Naga cause weaken?
Does Ao identity suffer merely because one former leader is questioned?
Is S. C. Jamir truly indispensable to the future of the Nagas?
That is the more meaningful question.
Ao Senden itself stated that the Naga political issue does not belong exclusively to any individual, organisation or faction and that any Naga citizen with an understanding of the issue may express views and contribute to the political process.
That principle could have ended the controversy.
Jamir speaks.
Others disagree.
Public opinion judges both.
Why should it require an ultimatum?
Why should criticism of one ageing political personality become an institutional confrontation? Why should another generation once again be drawn into the familiar Jamir-versus-NSCN, faction-versus-faction, personality-versus-personality rhetoric?
These rivalries largely belong to another political generation. Jamir and Muivah have carried political differences for decades.
Different Naga factions have accumulated decades of ideological disputes, personal antagonisms, competing narratives, mistrust and bitterness.
Niki Sumi represents another long chapter of factional politics.
K. K. Sema and other elder personalities likewise emerged from political circumstances very different from those confronting younger Nagas today.
Their histories matter.
Their sacrifices should be recorded.
Their achievements should be acknowledged.
Their mistakes should also be examined.
But their rivalries need not become hereditary.
A young Ao does not automatically inherit Jamir’s enemies.
A young Tangkhul does not automatically inherit Muivah’s enemies.
A young Sumi does not have to inherit Niki Sumi’s political disputes.
And tomorrow’s Naga relationships should not be predetermined by quarrels that began before much of Gen Z was even born.
That baggage has already cost Nagas enough.
Old personalities quarrel.
Organisations rally behind them.
Tribal emotions are activated.
Historical wounds reopen.
And another generation is asked to choose sides.
Why?
Why should younger Nagas continue reproducing a political ecosystem centred on ageing personalities and decades-old antagonisms?
Their generation faces different challenges:
- Land and territorial security.
- The unresolved Naga political settlement.
- Governance and corruption.
- Unemployment and economic stagnation.
- Regional geopolitics.
- Armed organisations.
- Demographic pressures.
- Relations with neighbouring communities.
- The challenge of building unity across tribal and factional divisions.
Those questions require new thinking. They cannot forever be processed through Jamir versus Muivah, faction versus faction, tribe versus tribe, personality versus personality.
This is also where Ao Senden should reflect carefully.
Ao society has no shortage of educated, capable and politically conscious younger men and women. Its institutional energy can be directed towards nurturing that generation, encouraging independent political thinking and helping construct a common Naga future. It need not make the preservation of S. C. Jamir’s political relevance an institutional obligation.
Jamir is not being silenced.
He is not being denied citizenship.
He is not being prevented from expressing himself.
He is being questioned.
And being questioned is normal in political life.
If his ideas remain persuasive, they will survive criticism.
If they no longer resonate, society will naturally move beyond them.
No ultimatum can manufacture relevance.
No institution can make an individual indispensable.
No generation should be compelled to inherit an elder leader’s political enemies merely because it respects his history.
The same principle applies to Jamir, Muivah, Niki Sumi, K. K. Sema or anyone else.
Let them speak.
Let history remember their contributions.
Let younger Nagas listen where wisdom remains.
Let them reject what they believe no longer serves the collective future.
Respecting an elder does not require inheriting his enemies.
Defending freedom of expression does not require shielding a political personality from criticism.
Honouring history does not require carrying its bitterness indefinitely.
The sequence—from the reported Jamir–Nemcha travel episode on 9 September, to Jamir’s confirmed meeting with Mohan Bhagwat on 10 September, to the subsequent criticism from NSCN (IM) leaders and finally to Ao Senden’s 15-day ultimatum—should therefore provoke a much larger reflection.
How much longer must Gen Z Nagas fight political battles inherited from another generation?
Their elders have spoken for decades.
Their disagreements are well known.
Their rivalries are well documented.
Their contributions already belong to history.
But history is not a command for permanent obedience.
Gen Z Nagas should have the confidence to say:
- We respect what you contributed.
- We will learn from what you endured.
- But we will not inherit every enemy you created, every rivalry you sustained or every political burden you leave behind.
The Naga Gen Z must move on.
- Beyond ageing personalities.
- Beyond inherited factionalism.
- Beyond tribalised political quarrels.
- Beyond rhetoric created by another generation.
Respect the past. Learn from it. But give the future back to those who must live in it.
Personal opinions, pun intended.
(The views expressed are personal. The author can be reached at siiluniirapaobamai@gmail.com)
