Much has been discussed and written about the repatriation of the Naga human remains and other artifacts from the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford University of the United Kingdom, facilitated by the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) under the name and style, ‘Recover, Restore and Decolonize (RRaD). The enthusiasm of the FNR’s RRaD is understandable. However, it must be made clear that repatriation is a national issue. It is political in nature in that Nagaland became an independent nation by right of declaration. The declaration of independence by the Naga National Council (NNC) took place before the British Crown had officially transferred powers to India and Burma (now Myanmar). NNC was a mandated national institution. With the independence declaration, the colonial subjects became immaterial to the Nagas. Universally, a nation has an established government to exercise its own sovereign powers. Thus, the NNC too established the national government called the Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN). The Naga national government is the only competent authority to handle the repatriation issue.
The British Emperor took away the Naga human remains and other artifacts from the Naga country without the consent of our ancestors. In other words, it could be termed a colonial loot and a colonial sin that could not be cleansed/erased without political action/s. Until the government of the United Kingdom owns political and moral responsibilities for her act of betrayal and commit to correct the wrong, the time is not ripe for repatriation process. The Naga national government had not authorized any private agency to handle this national issue. Therefore, the big question is; “Who authorized the FNR to play the role of a facilitator”? To which authority are they answerable and accountable? Are they prepared to take responsibility for political ramifications? Without understanding the intricacies attached to our historical and political rights, it is unwise to rush for repatriation process unilaterally. Their actions, whether calculated or uncalculated, are questionable and liable to scrutiny by the national government, sooner or later. Any private agency meddling in national issue without the sanctioning authority of the national government becomes ultra vires.
On the issue of decolonization, history was unambiguous that the Nagas had no written treaty with the British out of conquer or defeat in the battle. In other words, politically, the Nagas were not subjugated people. In short, the Nagas were neither the British subjects nor under her suzerain. Thus, the story of colonization was a one- sided version. To the Nagas, it is still a subject that is open to contest. The attempts to colonize the Naga country were brutal. The process involved dehumanizing acts. In other words, colonization and dehumanization were inter-linked. They could not be delinked. Even if the Nagas accept the claims of colonization as the reality, the issue of her dehumanizing acts remains. Humanization could not be a demand. It should be natural and spontaneous. Even if decolonization is politically expedient, it cannot escape reparation. Repatriation is not a mere subject of history or anthropology. Therefore, the idea of decolonization through the process of repatriation is a subject premature to conclude. The process of repatriation or for that matter, the so-called decolonization cannot conclude without the involvement of the national government. Therefore, the FNR is cautioned to exercise discretion and restrain from over-enthusiasm.
Dated Urra: 22/09/2025
ACÜYI VADEO
Joint Secretary
Naga National Council
Nagaland
