DIMAPUR, FEBRUARY 1 (MExN): The Global Naga Forum (GNF) has said that public discourse on the Naga political issue is being “deliberately narrowed and distorted,” cautioning that recent public assertions have begun to question “the very legitimacy of resistance, dissent, and alternative political persuasions among the Nagas.”
In a statement on the Naga political issue and recent public assertions, the GNF said influential voices, “most notably S. C. Jamir and those who echo his line,” have moved beyond critique of organisations or methods and are now questioning foundational political positions within Naga society.
“This is not healthy debate. It is an attempt to decide, unilaterally, which Naga voices are acceptable and which must be delegitimised,” the statement said.
The forum said disagreement among Nagas was neither new nor dangerous, but warned that danger lay in the “shrinking of political space so that one worldview—aligned with administrative convenience and state power—claims moral superiority over all others.” It added that if this trajectory continued, “the Naga political issue will not be resolved through dialogue or consent. It will be closed through exhaustion, intimidation, and selective silence.”
Stating that the statement was not directed at individuals, the GNF said, “This statement is not a reaction to personalities. It is a response to a trajectory.”
Addressing claims that NSCN (IM) is responsible for delays in resolving the Naga political issue, the GNF said, “This assertion is misleading and incomplete.” It said negotiations between the Government of India and Naga political groups, primarily NSCN (IM), have continued for over two decades, while those now attributing delays to resistance had held high constitutional offices and affirmed the Indian constitutional framework without delivering a political settlement. “Delay cannot be attributed to one party alone, especially not the party without final authority to conclude or implement an agreement,” the forum said, adding that suggestions to the contrary “obscures responsibility.”
Responding to the view that resistance has become an obstacle to peace and normalcy, the GNF stated, “Peace without political resolution is not peace; it is quiet administration.” It said the Naga issue arose from “non-consensual political incorporation,” adding that calling resistance an obstacle presumed the issue was already settled. “Normalcy cannot be built on unresolved denial,” it said.
On assertions that NSCN (IM) no longer represents the will of the Naga people, the forum said, “This claim is repeatedly asserted but never substantiated.” It said no alternative political body chosen through collective Naga consent had been proposed and warned that “delegitimising representation without replacement empties the negotiating space in favour of unilateral closure—an outcome that benefits only one side.”
Addressing arguments that the Naga struggle had caused suffering and should therefore end, the GNF said, “Suffering is real, but isolating it from its causes is selective.” It added that decades of militarisation, emergency laws, and coercive governance did not arise because of resistance, stating that “resistance arose because of them.” It warned that “ending a struggle without addressing its cause buries wounds rather than healing them.”
Rejecting claims that development and progress were being held hostage by resistance, the forum said, “This argument fails on record.” It stated that long periods of governance under the Indian system did not produce accountable institutions or equitable development and added, “Development cannot substitute for political resolution; without dignity, development becomes management, not empowerment.”
Responding to claims that the younger generation wanted closure, the GNF said, “Closure without consent is not resolution; it is erasure,” adding that “no generation has the moral authority to permanently surrender unresolved political rights on behalf of future generations.”
On the argument that criticism of resistance amounted to free speech, the forum said, “Free speech is not in question—political intent is.” It stated that when criticism consistently targets resistance while leaving state power unexamined, “this is no longer neutral speech. It is alignment.”
The forum also rejected characterisations of opposing views as emotional or irresponsible, stating, “This is a tactic, not an argument.”
The GNF said, “The Global Naga Forum does not defend any organisation. It defends political space, historical honesty, and the right of Nagas to differ without intimidation.” It rejected attempts to reduce the Naga political issue to an administrative problem or to declare unresolved questions settled by repetition, adding, “No individual or group has the authority to silence another Naga political persuasion.”
The forum said, “This statement is issued in responsibility, not anger.” It added that those speaking from within power structures “cannot demand silence from others nor rewrite history by assertion,” stating that the credibility of Naga public life depended “not on who shouts loudest, but on who speaks truthfully and leaves space for dialogue.”
