The Global Naga Forum (GNF) has voiced strong opposition to the removal of the Naga name from official usage in Arunachal Pradesh, labeling it a “direct violation of the cultural heritage and historical identity of the Naga people residing in the districts of Tirap, Changlang, and Longding (TCL).”
According to the GNF, this decision “not only disregards the inalienable rights of the Naga community but also contradicts the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of cultural and linguistic diversity.” It argued that “Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to express and preserve one’s cultural identity.” Furthermore, the forum highlighted that “Article 29 provides for the protection of the interests of minorities by ensuring their right to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture.”
The removal of the Naga name, GNF asserted, undermines these constitutional protections, effectively denying the Naga community their “right to identity and cultural preservation.” It further claimed that the decision “also violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to every citizen of India.” This action, it argued, specifically targets the Naga community, creating “an atmosphere of discrimination” and contradicting the core democratic principles of equality and non-discrimination.
The GNF has also criticized the inability of elected Naga representatives to effectively address the rights of the Naga people, stating that the removal of the Naga name “exacerbates these issues by stripping away their cultural identity.” This loss complicates efforts to address the community’s concerns and aspirations, it added.
The GNF recalled a previous proposal for the creation of a Patkai Autonomous Council for the TCL areas, made under former Home Minister James Wanglat in 2004. The forum viewed this as a “step in the right direction for addressing the aspirations of the Naga people,” believing that such a council would align with the ongoing political negotiations between the Government of India and the Naga people. This would, in its view, “safeguard the rights and interests of tribal Naga populations,” allowing the Naga community to govern themselves and preserve their identity.
The GNF appealed to the Arunachal Pradesh government to reconsider its decision in light of constitutional protections and the need to uphold the principles of justice and equality.
“This decision not only violates the fundamental rights of the Naga people but also risks alienating a significant section of the population,” it said, adding, “Reversing this decision would demonstrate the government’s commitment to upholding the constitutional values of diversity, inclusivity, and respect for all communities.”
The GNF argued that the decision to remove the Naga name is a violation of the constitutional principles that protect the identity and rights of the Naga people, and that it disregards their rich cultural heritage and undermines their rightful place within Arunachal Pradesh. The GNF urged the state government to respect the identity and aspirations of the Naga people and to seek solutions that foster “just peace and respectful coexistence among the indigenous people in Arunachal Pradesh.”
MT
