Zanben Ezung
Dimapur
For decades, the Naga political issue has remained one of the longest and most complex political questions in India’s Northeast. Generations have lived through conflict, negotiations, ceasefires, political uncertainty and repeated assurances of an eventual settlement. Yet, despite years of dialogue and sustained peaceful negotiations, a final political solution remains elusive.
This raises an unavoidable question: Who bears responsibility for the prolonged delay?
To answer that question fairly, it is important to examine what has already been achieved and what remains unfinished.
After decades of political engagement and several years of sustained negotiations, the Naga political negotiators arrived at two historic milestones with the Government of India: the Framework Agreement (FA)signed on 3 August 2015 between the Government of India and the NSCN (IM), and the Agreed Position (AP) signed on 17 November 2017 between the Government of India and the Working Committee of the NNPGs.
These agreements represented significant political developments in the long history of the Naga peace process. The negotiating entities subsequently submitted their respective competencies, thereby completing what they understood to be the essential responsibilities entrusted to them.
The significance of these developments cannot simply be dismissed. Whatever differences may exist among political organizations or sections of Naga society, the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position remain important reference points in the political dialogue between the Government of India and the Naga political groups.
Once these agreements were signed, however, the responsibility for taking the process toward a final settlement could no longer be viewed merely as the responsibility of the negotiators. It became a collective responsibility.
Political organizations, tribal bodies, civil society institutions, churches, youth organizations, intellectuals and the Government of India all have a role to play. The challenge is no longer simply to negotiate; it is to demonstrate the political courage and statesmanship required to translate years of negotiations into a settlement that is honorable, inclusive and acceptable to the Naga people.
The Missed Opportunities for Common Ground
Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the Naga GBs Federation took a commendable initiative to create a common platform that acknowledged both the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position.
The initiative was significant because it attempted to place Naga society above organizational divisions and create space for a broader consensus. At a time when differences among political groups have often overshadowed the larger national question, any sincere effort to build common ground deserves serious consideration.
Unfortunately, the initiative became entangled in political interests and competing positions. Instead of becoming a bridge between different sections of Naga society, it was weakened by disagreements and vested interests.
The same pattern was visible when a group of educated unemployed Naga youths, identifying themselves as Fed Up Nagas, emerged with another common platform. Their stated objective was not to promote one political organization over another, but to demand an early political settlement based on the principles contained in the existing agreements.
Their frustration is understandable.
For young Nagas who have grown up hearing about negotiations, ceasefires and political settlements, the continuing uncertainty raises a fundamental question: How much longer must another generation wait?
The frustration expressed by young people should not automatically be interpreted as hostility toward any particular political organization. It can also be understood as an expression of fatigue with prolonged uncertainty and the absence of a clearly visible political conclusion.
The proposal to pursue democratic means, including a possible non-cooperation movement if the delay continues, should therefore be viewed within the larger context of growing public impatience. Whether one agrees with such methods or not, the underlying concern deserves to be heard.
The Agreements and the Question of Political Continuity
The central issue is not whether every Naga political organization agrees on every detail. Such unanimity may be unrealistic.
The more important question is whether there is sufficient political maturity to identify common ground and build upon what has already been achieved.
The Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position should therefore not be treated merely as historical documents. They are products of political negotiations and represent commitments reached between the Government of India and Naga political interlocutors. Any final settlement must, therefore, take into account the substance, principles and political understandings contained in these agreements.
If the process repeatedly returns to the starting point every time there is disagreement, negotiations can continue indefinitely without producing a settlement. A peace process cannot survive forever on dialogue alone. At some point, dialogue must produce political decisions.
That is where the present challenge lies.
Naga Unity Cannot Remain a Slogan
There is perhaps no issue more frequently invoked in Naga political discourse than unity.
Everyone speaks of Naga unity. Every section recognizes its importance. Yet unity remains one of the most difficult goals to achieve.
The reason is simple: unity cannot be created merely through speeches, declarations or emotional appeals.
Genuine unity requires a shared political foundation.
Respect for the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position can provide one such foundation. Rather than asking every organization to abandon its identity or political history, the focus should be on identifying the common political ground contained in the existing agreements.
Unity should not mean uniformity. Different organizations and communities may have different perspectives, histories and priorities. But they can still work toward a common political destination.
If unity is pursued while disregarding existing political commitments, the result may be further confusion rather than reconciliation. Every new initiative risks becoming another source of disagreement, and every disagreement creates another reason for delay.
The Naga people cannot afford an endless cycle in which the pursuit of unity itself becomes an excuse for postponing a settlement.
The Danger of Prolonged Stagnation
The consequences of prolonged political uncertainty extend beyond the negotiating table.
A society kept in a state of political uncertainty for decades becomes increasingly vulnerable to internal fragmentation. When people lose confidence in political processes, frustration can turn into suspicion, and suspicion can deepen existing divisions. The longer the political vacuum persists, the greater the danger that competing interests—whether factional, political or external—will attempt to exploit those divisions.
This should concern every Naga.
If continued stagnation creates conditions for further fragmentation or the emergence of additional armed factions, the consequences could be disastrous. More groups claiming to defend different interpretations of the Naga political cause would not necessarily strengthen the movement. On the contrary, it could further divide the people, weaken their collective political voice and make a final settlement even more difficult.
The Naga political struggle has already endured enough fragmentation.
The lesson of history should be clear: internal division has always carried a greater cost than political disagreement itself.
We Must Not Repeat the Tragedies of the Past
The Naga people have known the devastating consequences of conflict.
There was a time when internal rivalries and violent conflicts were fought with spears and machetes. Today, the instruments of violence are far more destructive.
The greatest tragedy would be to allow political frustration and internal divisions to evolve into another cycle of armed confrontation among Nagas themselves.
Such a development would be a devastating irony.
Generations of Nagas have sacrificed, struggled and endured hardship in pursuit of political dignity and a peaceful future. To allow that aspiration to become consumed by internal conflict would be a betrayal of those sacrifices.
The objective of the political struggle was never simply to preserve conflict. It was to secure a future in which the Naga people could live with dignity, identity, peace and political rights.
That future cannot be built through endless division.
So, Who Is Responsible?
We therefore return to the question with which we began:
Who is to be blamed for the prolonged delay in the Naga political solution?
It would be too simplistic to place the entire responsibility on one individual, one organization or one side.
The Naga political negotiators have already taken significant steps by reaching and signing the Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position. The Government of India, as the other principal party to the political dialogue, carries an equally significant responsibility to demonstrate political will and move the process toward a settlement.
At the same time, Naga society itself cannot escape responsibility.
Political organizations must be prepared to rise above organizational interests. Tribal bodies must avoid becoming instruments of factional politics. Civil society must act independently and responsibly. Churches, intellectuals and community leaders must help create an atmosphere of reconciliation rather than division. And young Nagas must be given a meaningful voice in determining the political future that will ultimately belong to their generation.
Accountability, therefore, should not become an exercise in blame alone.
It should become a call to responsibility.
The real question is not merely who caused the delay. The greater question is:
Who has the courage to end it?
The Time for Political Courage Is Now
The Naga people have waited long enough.
Another decade of negotiations without a settlement cannot be the answer. Another generation should not be asked to inherit the same uncertainty. Political dialogue must eventually lead to political resolution.
What is required now is not another round of blame, rhetoric or competing claims to represent the Naga people. What is required is statesmanship.
The Government of India must demonstrate the political will necessary to translate the understandings reached through negotiations into a final settlement. Naga political organizations must demonstrate the maturity to place the collective interest above factional considerations. Civil society must create space for dialogue and reconciliation. And the people must demand accountability without allowing frustration to turn into hatred or violence.
The Framework Agreement and the Agreed Position provide an important political foundation. The task now is to build upon that foundation rather than allowing it to become another chapter in a history of unfinished promises.
The Naga political journey has already consumed decades.
It should not consume another generation.
The moment has come for all stakeholders to ask themselves what history will say about them: Will they be remembered as the generation that allowed division and political hesitation to prolong the crisis, or as the generation that finally found the courage to bring the Naga political journey to an honorable and lasting conclusion?
The answer will depend not on words, but on action.
The Naga people deserve peace with dignity. They deserve political clarity. They deserve a settlement that is honorable, inclusive and lasting.
Above all, they deserve an end to waiting.
The opportunity remains. What is needed now is the political will, collective responsibility and courage to seize it.
