|
Besesayo Kezo (IPS, Retd DGP)
In 1929, the Naga Club told the Simon Commission that the Nagas wished “to leave us alone to determine for ourselves as in ancient times.” Nearly a century later, this demand still defines the Naga political question. As British power receded after the Second World War, the Naga people articulated a collective political identity that has shaped decades of conflict and negotiation, even though a settlement remains unresolved.
The Naga Hills District Tribal Council, established in 1945, was reorganized and renamed the Naga National Council (NNC) on 2 February 1946 in Wokha. The change from “Tribal Council” to “National Council” signaled a broader claim to a shared political identity that transcended tribal divisions. Angami Zapu Phizo, born in Khonoma in 1904, emerged as its leading figure. After spending several years in Burma as a businessman, he collaborated with the Imperial Japanese Army during the war in exchange for promises of recognition of Naga sovereignty. Most Nagas, however, supported the Allies during the Battle of Kohima. Following the war, Phizo returned and worked to mobilize Nagas across areas administered by India and the unadministered tracts around the concept of “Nagaism”—a shared National consciousness that transcended tribal divisions. He argued that the Nagas had never been conquered or absorbed by India and that the British departure restored their inherent independence.
In 1948, Phizo was arrested in Calcutta for fomenting unrest in the Indo-Burma borderlands and imprisoned at Presidency Jail. During his incarceration, he wrote lengthy appeals to Governor-General C Rajago- palachari. He was released later that year after a vehicle accident involving his family. A pivotal meeting occurred on 19 July 1947, when a Naga delegation, including Phizo, met Mahatma Gandhi at Bhangi Colony in Delhi. Accounts in the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi and Naga narratives record Gandhi as saying that if the Nagas did not consider themselves Indian, no one could compel them to join the Union, and that he would travel to Kohima and ask to be shot before any Naga was harmed. Several days later, on 14 August 1947—one day before India’s independence—the NNC declared Naga independence at Kohima, raised a flag, and sent telegrams to the United Nations, the British Government, and the newly established Indian authorities. Phizo had previously announced the declaration through his People’s Independence League.
In June 1947, moderate NNC leaders, including Theyiechuthe Sakhrie and Aliba Imti, signed the Nine-Point Naga-Akbar Hydari Accord with Sir Akbar Hydari, the Governor of Assam. The agreement recognized the Nagas’ right “to develop themselves according to their freely expressed wishes.” It provided for Naga Courts to operate under customary law; Naga control over executive departments funded by the Nagas; safeguards against the enactment, without consent, of laws affecting religious practices; protection of land from alienation to non-Nagas; Naga responsibility for taxation; boundary adjustments to unify Naga areas; and the continued application of the Chin Hills and Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations. The critical ninth clause stipulated that the Governor, as agent of the Indian Union, would bear special responsibility for ten years to ensure compliance with the agreement. At the end of that period, the Naga Council would be asked whether it sought an extension or a new agreement concerning the future of the Naga people. Differing interpre- tations of this clause—some viewing it as opening the possibility of future separation, and others as providing only for a review of administrative arrangements within India—led the Indian Government to effectively repudiate it by 1949.
Phizo became president of the NNC in late 1949 or 1950, after defeating Vizar Angami by a single vote. Under his leadership, the organization held a voluntary plebiscite on 16 May 1951 at Khuochiezie in Kohima, followed by similar votes across Naga areas. Participation was recorded by thumbprint rather than by secret ballot. The NNC claimed that 99.9 percent of participants supported independence. The Government of India and the Assam administration rejected the exercise, citing the absence of official observers, the exclusion of Government employees, incomplete coverage of all Naga-inhabited areas, and the implausibility high reported percentage. Phizo met Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on several occasions in 1951–52, but the meetings produced no agreement. The Indian Government regarded the Naga Hills as an integral part of India.
As peaceful avenues narrowed, some factions within the movement turned to armed resistance. In March 1956, the NNC formally proclaimed the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN), comprising a Parliament (Ho Ho) of Tatars, a Kedahge (president), and Kilonsers (ministers), as well as the Naga Home Guards (later known as the Naga Army), which drew on surplus Allied and Japanese weapons. Indian Army operations intensified, and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was enacted in 1958. Internal violence also accompanied the conflict. T Sakhrie, the NNC’s founding secretary and a leading moderate who advocated non violent methods and had broken with Phizo, was assassinated near Kohima on January 17, 1956, an act widely attributed to hard-liners. Phizo escaped to East Pakistan in December 1956 and eventually reached London in 1960, where he lived in exile until his death in 1990, continuing his international campaign.
Alongside the underground movement, mode- rate leaders organized the Naga People’s Convention (NPC). At its third session in Mokokchung in October 1959, the Convention adopted a 16-Point proposal. On 26 July 1960, a delegation led by Dr Imkongliba Ao, president of the NPC, signed the 16-Point Agreement with the Government of India, led by Prime Minister Nehru. The agreement provided for the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area to become the State of Nagaland within the Indian Union, initially under the Ministry of External Affairs; a Governor appointed by the President; a Council of Ministers accountable to a Legislative Assembly; representation in Parliament; and robust safeguards, later enshrined in Article 371A. Under these safeguards, no Act of Parliament affecting Naga religious or social practices, customary laws, or the ownership and transfer of land and its resources would apply unless approved by the Nagaland Assembly. The possibility of incorporating contiguous Naga areas at a later date was also noted, subject to Constitutional provisions. The State of Nagaland Act, 1962, and the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act led to Nagaland’s formal inauguration as India’s 16th State on 1 December 1963, with P Shilu Ao serving as its first Chief Minister. Imkongliba Ao was assassinated in Mokokchung on 22 August 1961; Nehru described the killing as a cold-blooded and treacherous act.
Violence persisted after Statehood. In 1964, the Nagaland Baptist Church Council facilitated a Peace Mission comprising Jayaprakash Narayan (the Sarvodaya leader), Assam Chief Minister Bimala Prasad Chaliha, and Reverend Michael Scott, an Anglican priest known for his work on civil liberties. The Mission secured a ceasefire agreement, signed in Sakraba village in May 1964 and brought into effect on 6 September 1964, between the Government of India and the Federal Government of Nagaland. Several rounds of talks followed, but fundamental differences over sovereignty remained unresolved. Narayan resigned in early 1966 after advising the underground movement to accept autonomy within the Union; Scott was expelled from India in May 1966 after writing to the United Nations. The Mission dissolved without achieving a political settlement, although the ceasefire continued for several years before being formally terminated in 1972.
Internal divisions intensified. General Kaito Sukhai (Kaito Sema), a prominent young military commander who had led early operations, including the Battle of Hoshepu, and later opposed the pro-China orientation and certain leadership practices, was assassinated in Kohima on 3–4 August 1968. Later that year, his followers, including his brother Kughato Sukhai and Scato Swu, formed the Revolutionary Government of Nagaland (RGN) to advocate a peaceful settlement and to continue the ceasefire. The RGN was dissolved in 1973, and many of its cadres were absorbed into the Border Security Force.
On 11 November 1975, representatives of underground organizations met with Governor LP Singh in Shillong and signed the Shillong Accord. The participants included I Temjenba, S Dahru, Venyiyi Rhakho, Z Ramyo, M Assa, and Kevi Yallay, the younger brother of AZ Phizo. They agreed to accept the Constitution of India unconditionally, deposit their arms at designated locations, and allow a reasonable period to address other issues. Venyiyi Rhakho, who participated in the discussions, declined to sign the final document. Hardliners denounced the Accord as treasonous. Phizo, still in London, neither formally endorsed nor repudiated it. A supplementary agreement in January 1976 addressed the implementation of the arms-deposit clause.
Opposition to the Shillong Accord led by Isak Chishi Swu (Sema), Thui-ngaleng Muivah (Tang- khul), and SS Khaplang (Hemi Naga from Burma) to break away and form the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) on January 31, 1980. The NSCN rejected the Accord, established the Government of the People’s Republic of Nagalim, and pursued a more ideologically driven program that combined socialism, a Christian spiritual outlook, and the demand for a sovereign Nagalim encompassing all Naga- inhabited areas. In 1988, amid leadership, ethnic, and strategic differences, the organization split violently into NSCN-IM (Isak-Muivah) and NSCN-K (Khaplang), resulting in the deaths of many cadres. Further factionalism has produced additional groups over the decades.
Peace processes resumed in the 1990s. The NSCN-IM entered into a formal ceasefire with the Government of India in 1997, which has been extended periodically. On 3 August 2015, in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the NSCN-IM and the Government of India signed a Framework Agreement. The publicly released portions acknowledge the “unique history” of the Nagas and refer to “sharing the sovereign power” and an “enduring inclusive new relationship of peaceful co-existence of the two entities.” The NSCN-IM interprets this as recognition of Naga sovereignty and as requiring a separate Flag and Constitution (Yehzabo); the Government of India maintains that any settlement must remain within the Indian Constitution and that the agreement does not concede separate sovereign status. The Government has never officially published the full text. In November 2017, the Government signed an “Agreed Position” with the Working Committee of the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), a coalition of other factions that has generally been more willing to work within the existing Constitutional framework and does not insist on the same interpre- tation of shared sovereignty.
As of October 2026, the Naga political issue remains unresolved. Although multiple ceasefires remain in effect, a comprehensive final settlement has yet to be reached. Key points of contention include the NSCN-IM’s demand for a Naga Flag and Constitution; the integration of contiguous Naga areas, which neighboring States oppose; and differing interpretations of the 2015 Framework Agreement and the 2017 Agreed Position. Recent developments include the appointment of a new Interlocutor, the NSCN-IM’s call for a third-party guarantor for any eventual agreement, and internal divisions among factions. These include the formation of a provisional Government by an “Eastern Flank” group based in Myanmar, which has criticized the Hebron leadership. Naga civil society organizations and tribal bodies continue to call for unity and an early, hono-rable settlement that can secure broad acceptance.
From the mobilization of Nagaism in the 1940s, through the Hydari Agreement, the 1951 plebiscite, the establishment of Nagaland as a State under the 16-Point Agreement, successive ceasefires and accords, and the ongoing framework negotiations, Naga political history since World War II has been marked by persistent assertion of a distinct identity, repeated efforts at accommodation, and the enduring challenge of reconciling competing visions of sovereignty, integration, and Constitutional status. Whether the current processes will yield a durable settlement remains an open question that continues to shape politics in Nagaland and the wider region.