The Global Naga Forum (GNF) on Sunday issued a detailed statement cautioning against what it described as a deliberate narrowing of public discourse on the Naga political issue, amid recent assertions questioning the legitimacy of resistance and dissent.
Without naming individuals directly, the GNF said influential voices including former Nagaland chief minister SC Jamir and those echoing similar views have moved beyond criticism of methods or organisations to questioning the very legitimacy of alternative Naga political persuasions.
“This is not a healthy debate,” the GNF said, adding that attempts were being made to unilaterally decide which Naga voices are acceptable and which must be delegitimised.
Responding to claims that the delay in reaching a political settlement is primarily due to NSCN (IM), the GNF said such assertions were “misleading and incomplete.” It noted that negotiations with the Government of India have continued for over two decades, during which leaders now blaming resistance held high constitutional offices and had direct access to New Delhi.
“Delay cannot be attributed to one party alone, especially not the party without final authority to conclude or implement an agreement,” the statement said.
On the argument that resistance has become an obstacle to peace and normalcy, the GNF said peace without political resolution amounted to “quiet administration.” It maintained that the core political question—arising from what it termed non-consensual political incorporation—remains unresolved.
Addressing claims that NSCN (IM) no longer represents the will of the Naga people, the GNF said such assertions are repeatedly made without proposing any alternative political body chosen through collective Naga consent or any legitimate replacement interlocutor.
“Delegitimising representation without replacement empties the negotiating space in favour of unilateral closure,” it said.
The GNF also rejected the view that development and progress are being held hostage by resistance, arguing that long periods of governance under the Indian system did not result in accountable institutions or equitable development. “Development cannot substitute for political resolution; without dignity, development becomes management, not empowerment,” the statement said.
On calls to “move on” in the name of the younger generation, the GNF said closure without consent amounted to erasure, adding that no generation has the moral authority to permanently surrender unresolved political rights on behalf of future generations.
The forum further said that while criticism of resistance falls under free speech, a consistent focus on resistance while leaving state power unexamined reflected political alignment rather than neutral debate.
Clarifying its position, the GNF said it was not defending any organisation but was seeking to protect political space, historical honesty, and the right of Nagas to differ without intimidation.
“No individual or group has the authority to silence another Naga political persuasion,” it said, warning that unresolved political questions cannot be settled through repetition, exhaustion, or selective silence.
The statement concluded by stressing that the credibility of Naga public life depends on preserving space for dialogue rather than suppressing dissent.