The confusion surrounding the Common Platform Rally at Agri Expo has once again exposed the deep and growing fragmentation within Naga civil society. What should have been an opportunity to demonstrate collective resolve has instead become another chapter of discord, with apex tribal bodies, coordinating committees and sectoral organizations issuing sharply conflicting directives. It feels, yet again, like one step forward and two steps back.
On the surface, the chaos appears accidental, the natural outcome of differing opinions among diverse bodies. Yet the pattern is too familiar. When every initiative results in parallel calls, counter-calls, endorsements and boycotts, the disorder begins to look less like coincidence and more like a design shaped by long-standing mistrust and competing claims of legitimacy. If it is by design, then the question Naga society must ask is: who benefits from confusion, and who bears responsibility for repeatedly deepening the divide?
All organizations express good intentions. The NGBF and its partners argue that the rally is a necessary push toward a long-delayed settlement. The NTHCC insists that unity must not be compromised by creating additional platforms outside the reconciliatory framework led by the Forum for Naga Reconciliation. Both positions stem from a desire to protect the collective future. Yet, despite the good intentions, the outcome is unmistakable. Instead of cohesion, the people are witnessing greater polarization. Instead of clarity, there is fatigue and disillusionment.
The Naga political question has crossed decades and generations. What the present moment demands is not another contest over who represents whom, but a shared understanding that division only weakens the Naga position. A future that hinges on unity cannot be built on parallel mandates and contradictory mobilization.
It is time for Naga people, institutions and leaders to pause and ask where they are headed. If this cycle of fragmentation continues, the dream of a common political future may slowly erode beyond recovery. The responsibility to prevent that outcome lies not with a single organization but with every stakeholder who claims to speak for the people.
