The last few days has offered two strikingly similar episodes that, taken together, reveal a deeper truth about Nagaland’s place within the Indian Union. First, Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio appealed to the Union Home Minister over the delay in clearing Protected Area Permit applications for international delegates visiting Nagaland for the Hornbill Festival. Coincidentally, the visit of American evangelist Franklin Graham was cancelled after a visa denial.
While each incident may stem from routine administrative or security procedures, the pattern they form speaks to something far more unsettling. Nagaland remains a state whose international interactions, cultural events and even religious gatherings are filtered through layers of external approval. More than sixty years after statehood, and nearly eighty years since the Naga political awakening, the people continue to experience restrictions that are rarely imposed elsewhere in the country.
The larger question therefore is not about two isolated decisions. It is about why Nagaland still requires a Protected Area Permit to welcome foreign visitors. It is about why decisions directly affecting the state’s cultural and social life are taken far from its borders. It is about why even routine global engagements are treated as security exceptions rather than expressions of a vibrant and confident community.
These concerns revive an unavoidable historical reality. Naga political aspirations did not arise from post-independence turbulence. They were articulated clearly before India became a sovereign nation. For many Nagas, the present-day procedural barriers echo an older experience of being governed by powers that do not fully understand or trust them.
This does not mean that the Union government has no legitimate concerns. Security and diplomacy are national responsibilities. Yet the continued application of extraordinary rules to an entire state creates a perception that Nagaland is forever an exception, never an equal partner.
If India seeks meaningful integration in the northeast, it must recognize that mutual trust cannot grow within a framework that treats Nagaland as a region requiring perpetual supervision. Ending outdated restrictions, improving transparency in decisions that affect the state’s social life, and acknowledging its distinct political history would be a more honest beginning.
Nagaland has shown loyalty to the nation while continuing to safeguard its identity. It is time for New Delhi to demonstrate the same confidence in Nagaland.