Dr Anui Sainyiu
“Political ideologies may differ, but the nation must remain one”
This article is written in a spirit of constructive constitutional dialogue. It is intended to encourage reflection on institutional reform and national unity rather than to diminish the contributions of any organisation or individual.
Introduction
Nearly one hundred years have passed since the emergence of organised Naga political consciousness through the formation of the Naga Club in 1918 and, subsequently, the establishment of the Naga National Council (NNC) in 1946. Throughout this remarkable journey, generations of Nagas have sacrificed their lives, endured hardship, and devoted themselves to what they believed to be the collective political future of the Naga people. Few political movements have demonstrated such resilience over such an extended period.
Yet the passage of time also invites reflection. As the Naga national movement enters its second century, an important constitutional question deserves careful consideration: How can one nation preserve political diversity while maintaining institutional unity?
This article argues that the principal challenge confronting the Naga national movement is not political diversity itself. Diversity of political thought is a natural feature of every democratic society and should not be regarded as a weakness. Rather, the greater challenge has been the gradual fragmentation of institutions claiming to represent the same national aspiration. While differences in political philosophy are inevitable, the multiplication of institutions pursuing a common national objective has made collective political action increasingly difficult.
The purpose of this article is neither to revisit historical controversies nor to question the sacrifices made by any organisation or individual. Every generation of Naga national workers has contributed to the movement under circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, and their commitment deserves respect regardless of subsequent political developments. Likewise, every political organisation that has emerged over the decades has made its own contribution to sustaining the Naga political issue. Recognising those contributions does not require agreement with every historical decision, nor does it diminish the legitimacy of differing political perspectives.
Instead, this article advances a constitutional proposition. It asks whether the distinction between nationalism and political ideology has become insufficiently recognised within the institutional evolution of the Naga national movement. If nationalism represents the enduring political identity of a people, while political ideologies represent different approaches to pursuing that identity, should these two concepts be embodied in separate constitutional roles rather than competing institutional structures?
I argue that they should.
Accordingly, I propose the reformation of the Naga National Council as the common national institution of the Naga people, not as an ideological political party, nor as a replacement for existing organisations, but as a constitutional framework within which political plurality may coexist with institutional unity. Such a proposal does not seek to erase history or diminish the identity of any organisation. Rather, it seeks to explore whether the constitutional future of the Naga national movement might be strengthened through institutional cooperation rather than continued institutional fragmentation.
Nationalism and Political Ideology
Any discussion of institutional reform must begin with a clear distinction between nationalism and political ideology.
In political theory, a nation is understood as a historical and political community bound together by a shared identity, common history, and collective aspiration. Political ideologies, by contrast, represent different philosophies concerning how that community should be governed. Liberalism, socialism, conservatism, communism, federalism, and other political traditions propose alternative approaches to governance, economic organisation, and constitutional design. They differ in their political programmes, yet they do not define the nation itself.
This distinction is constitutionally significant:
● The nation constitutes the permanent political community.
● Political ideologies represent legitimate diversity within that community.
Accordingly, ideological pluralism should not be regarded as incompatible with national unity. On the contrary, democratic societies often derive strength from the peaceful coexistence of competing political ideas within a shared constitutional framework.
The constitutional challenge arises when ideological differences cease to function within a common national institution and instead become the basis for creating separate institutions that each claim to represent the same national aspiration. At that point, the distinction between nationalism and political ideology begins to blur. Institutional fragmentation gradually replaces institutional cooperation, and organisations that share a common national objective increasingly pursue that objective through separate constitutional structures.
In my assessment, this has been one of the most significant institutional challenges confronting the Naga national movement over the past several decades. Political diversity, in itself, has never been the problem. The greater challenge has been the absence of a common constitutional institution capable of accommodating that diversity while preserving the unity of the national movement.
If political ideologies are permitted to flourish within a shared national institution, diversity becomes a source of democratic strength. If political ideologies are expressed through competing national institutions, the nation risks speaking through multiple constitutional voices.
Lessons from Comparative History
Comparative history does not provide ready-made solutions to complex political questions. Every nation possesses its own historical experience, cultural traditions, and constitutional development. Nevertheless, the experiences of other national movements can illuminate broader institutional principles that transcend particular historical contexts. One such principle is that political diversity need not undermine national unity when it is accommodated within a common national institution.
The history of India's struggle for independence illustrates this point. During the anti-colonial movement, the Indian National Congress functioned as the principal national platform, yet it was by no means the only political organisation. Socialist groups, communist parties, revolutionary movements, and regional organisations frequently differed on questions of political ideology, economic policy, and methods of resistance. Despite these profound disagreements, the larger objective of ending British colonial rule remained a shared national commitment. Political competition did not prevent cooperation on matters concerning the national cause.
Burma's independence movement presents a similar experience. During the struggle against colonial rule, nationalists, socialists, communists, and other political forces cooperated through broad alliances despite substantial ideological differences. Although these alliances later fractured following independence, the movement demonstrated an important constitutional lesson: political organisations with differing ideologies could work together when united by a common national objective.
These examples should not be interpreted as suggesting that the histories of India, Burma, and the Naga people are identical; each emerged from distinct historical circumstances. Comparative analysis is valuable because constitutional principles may be comparable. The broader lesson is institutional: political pluralism does not inevitably produce national disunity. It becomes a source of division only when competing political ideologies develop into competing national institutions.
Over the decades, various Naga political organisations have emerged, each shaped by its own historical experience, leadership, and political philosophy. Such diversity should not be regarded as a weakness. The constitutional question is whether these differences should continue to be expressed through separate institutions claiming to represent the same national aspiration, or whether they can be accommodated within a shared national framework.
History should not merely be commemorated; it should also be examined with intellectual honesty and constitutional imagination. Every generation inherits the responsibility of asking whether the institutional arrangements created by previous generations continue to serve the larger national interest. Such reflection is an acknowledgement that enduring political movements must periodically renew their institutions if they are to remain relevant to changing historical circumstances.
Why Reform the Naga National Council?
If institutional reform is both necessary and desirable, which institution should serve as the common national framework for the future of the Naga political movement?
I propose that the Naga National Council (NNC) should be reformed and renewed to perform that role. This proposal rests upon three constitutional considerations:
1. The NNC was established as a national institution, not an ideological party
Historically, the Naga National Council was not founded to promote a particular political ideology or system of government. It was established as a national institution through which the political aspirations of the Naga people could be collectively articulated. Its legitimacy rested upon its representative national character during a formative period of Naga political history. Because it was not founded as an ideological organisation, it possesses the potential to accommodate diverse political viewpoints without requiring ideological uniformity. Reforming the NNC means renewing it as the common national institution within which different political organisations may participate while retaining their own identities.
2. Constitutional continuity should not be disregarded
The Shillong Accord of 1975 remains one of the most debated episodes in the history of the Naga national movement. What is constitutionally relevant, however, is whether the historical controversies surrounding the Accord necessarily extinguished the constitutional existence of the NNC. In my view, the answer is no. The organisation continued to exist, while many within the movement rejected the Accord on constitutional grounds. Moreover, A. Z. Phizo, who remained the recognised President of the NNC in exile, neither signed nor publicly endorsed the Accord. Constitutional reform does not require unanimous agreement on every historical controversy; it requires recognition that institutions possessing historical continuity and national significance may be renewed rather than abandoned.
3. Another institution is unlikely to resolve institutional fragmentation
Over the past several decades, political disagreements have frequently resulted in the creation of new organisations. Yet the cumulative consequence has been the multiplication of institutions pursuing what is fundamentally the same national aspiration. If every political disagreement leads to the establishment of another institution, fragmentation gradually becomes self-perpetuating. The answer to institutional fragmentation is not further institutional multiplication. I do not propose the creation of another council, committee, or umbrella organisation. Instead, I propose the constitutional renewal of an institution that already forms part of the shared political history of the Naga people.
Towards a Constitutional Framework
The objective of reform is neither to abolish existing political organisations nor to require ideological conformity. Political diversity has become an enduring feature of the Naga national movement and should be recognized as a political reality rather than treated as an obstacle.
The Naga national movement faces a constitutional choice:
1. It may continue to function through multiple institutions, each pursuing the national question from its own organizational perspective.
2. It may seek to establish a constitutional arrangement in which political diversity is preserved while national representation is exercised through a common institution.
A reformed Naga National Council should not become another political party competing with existing organisations, nor should it seek to replace or absorb them. Rather, it should serve as the constitutional forum through which all participating organisations may deliberate collectively on matters concerning the national political issue while retaining their respective identities, leaderships, and political philosophies. Such an arrangement would recognize that unity does not require uniformity.
The detailed constitutional structure through which such a framework might operate will be examined in the second part of this article. For the present, one guiding principle suffices: A nation should strive to possess one common national institution, even while accommodating many political organisations within it.
Author Note: The author is an independent researcher whose work focuses on constitutional theory, state formation, and political institutions. The views expressed are personal and are intended to contribute to constructive public discussion.
This is the first of a two part series.
