The Delayed Naga Peace Agreements: India’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy and the Critical Need for Naga Unity – Noktan Konyak Naga

The unresolved Naga political issue remains one of the longest and most complex conflicts in South Asia. Despite several decades of negotiations and significant agreements, including the Framework Agreement (FA) of 2015 and the Agreed Position (AP) of 2017, a just and honourable solution remains elusive. The Government of India (GoI), which has played a central role in these negotiations, appears to be using a calculated strategy of delaying the resolution while deepening divisions among Naga political factions. This strategy not only violates the spirit of these agreements but also undermines the aspirations of the Naga people for self-determination and recognition of their unique history and political rights.

To comprehend the current impasse, it is essential to critically examine the role of the GoI, the mistakes made by Naga political groups, and the consequences of failing to unify behind a singular goal. Furthermore, the rise of the Frontier Nagaland proposal exemplifies how India’s divide-and-rule policy is being tactically employed to fracture the Naga movement, making it imperative that Nagas rise to the challenge by uniting and reasserting their political will.

The GoI’s Stalling Tactics: A Calculated Strategy
The signing of the Framework Agreement between the GoI and the NSCN was hailed as a breakthrough in the protracted Naga peace process. The agreement, which recognized the unique history of the Naga people, aimed to pave the way for a peaceful, lasting solution to the Naga political issue. Similarly, the Agreed Position, signed with the NNPGs, was also seen as a progressive step towards bringing diverse Naga political groups under one political solution. However, the GoI’s unwillingness to take concrete steps to implement these agreements reveals a broader strategy designed to keep the Naga people divided and weaken their collective bargaining power.

Despite the promises made in both the FA and AP, the GoI has repeatedly delayed moving towards a final settlement. It has become increasingly clear that this delay is not due to mere bureaucratic inefficiency or lack of political will. Instead, it reflects a deliberate attempt to stall the peace process, allowing time for internal divisions within the Naga political landscape to fester and intensify. The GoI’s inaction sends a message that it is not genuinely committed to resolving the Naga issue in an inclusive and honourable manner. Rather than advancing the peace process, the GoI has seemingly invested in deepening existing fractures within the Naga political movement.

The Divide-and-Rule Approach: A Page from Colonial Playbooks
India’s reluctance to fully implement the FA and AP aligns with the age-old strategy of divide-and-rule, historically employed by colonial powers to subdue independence movements. The GoI has borrowed from this playbook, ensuring that the Naga people remain divided along political, geographical, and tribal lines. The GoI’s refusal to bring all Naga political groups to a single negotiating table has created a fragmented landscape in which Naga political organizations have been forced to negotiate separately. This fragmentation has weakened the collective voice of the Naga people, diluting their demands and providing the GoI with more room to maneuver and manipulate the outcome.

Instead of building on the FA as the cornerstone of Naga unity, the GoI has chosen to negotiate separately with the NNPGs and other factions, resulting in parallel negotiations that have eroded the very essence of the FA. By encouraging separate dialogues, the GoI has successfully shifted the narrative from one of Naga unity and self-determination to one of internal discord. The outcome is a weakened Naga political movement that is less capable of challenging the GoI’s hegemonic position.

The Frontier Nagaland Proposal: A Case Study in India’s Divide-and-Rule Strategy
The Eastern Nagaland People’s Organization (ENPO) demand for a separate state of Frontier Nagaland offers a glaring example of the GoI’s divide-and-conquer approach. The ENPO’s grievances are deeply rooted in genuine concerns about the marginalization and neglect of Eastern Nagaland by the Nagaland state government. For decades, the people of Eastern Nagaland have faced severe underdevelopment, lack of infrastructure, and unequal representation in the state’s political and administrative affairs. These longstanding issues gave rise to the demand for Frontier Nagaland, which the ENPO believes would better address the needs of the region’s inhabitants.

While the grievances of the ENPO are legitimate and deserve immediate attention, the GoI’s sudden support for the creation of a Frontier Nagaland state raises serious concerns. Rather than addressing the root causes of the region’s underdevelopment within the framework of the ongoing Naga peace process, the GoI has strategically shifted focus to the ENPO’s demand. This move appears less about fulfilling the aspirations of the people of Eastern Nagaland and more about further fragmenting the Naga political landscape. By lending credence to the Frontier Nagaland proposal, the GoI is effectively pitting different Naga regions against each other, ensuring that the Naga political movement remains divided.

This tactic not only undermines the integrity of the Naga political struggle but also weakens the FA and AP, which were intended to bring a comprehensive and inclusive solution to all Nagas, regardless of their geographical location. By encouraging the creation of a separate state, the GoI is side-lining the larger political issue and instead, advancing a narrative of regional autonomy that serves its own interests.

Missed Opportunities for Unity: Lessons from the Past
One of the most significant failures in the Naga political struggle has been the inability of Naga political groups to rally behind the Framework Agreement as a unifying force. The FA recognized the unique history and political rights of the Naga people and provided a foundation for a lasting political solution. Had Naga political factions united behind this agreement from the beginning, they could have presented a formidable, cohesive front to the GoI. Instead, divisions between the NSCN and the NNPGs deepened, allowing the GoI to exploit these internal differences to its advantage.

The decision by some factions to pursue separate negotiations with the GoI outside the framework of the FA was a strategic error that has had far-reaching consequences. This disunity has emboldened the GoI to negotiate on its terms, diminishing the leverage of Naga political groups. The FA, which once held the promise of a comprehensive solution, has now been reduced to a mere document, its spirit weakened by factionalism and internal discord.

The question that must be asked is: What did Naga leaders expect when they abandoned the united front that the FA sought to establish? By allowing internal divisions to dictate the course of negotiations, Naga leaders have inadvertently played into the GoI’s hands. The current state of affairs, in which Naga groups are pitted against each other, is the direct result of this failure to prioritize unity.

GoI’s Political Calculus: Why Unity Threatens Its Strategy
It is critical to understand that the GoI’s divide-and-rule strategy is not merely a product of bureaucratic inertia or political indecision. Rather, it is a deliberate attempt to prevent the emergence of a united Naga front that could effectively challenge India’s territorial and political control over the region. A united Naga movement, rallying behind the FA and AP, would pose a serious threat to the GoI’s ability to control the narrative around the Naga political issue. The GoI knows that once Nagas are united, the leverage shifts in favor of the Naga political groups, making it much more difficult for the GoI to dictate terms.

Instead of working towards uniting Nagas under one negotiation framework, the GoI has focused on fostering divisions by advancing regional demands like the Frontier Nagaland proposal. The ultimate goal is to keep the Naga political movement fractured and weakened, ensuring that no single Naga entity has the power to press for a comprehensive solution that truly reflects the aspirations of the Naga people.

Naga Responsibility: The Need for Strategic Unity
While the GoI’s role in delaying the peace process and dividing the Naga people is clear, the responsibility for overcoming this challenge rests squarely on the shoulders of Naga leaders and political groups. It is imperative that Naga leaders recognize the importance of unity as the only viable path towards achieving a just and honourable solution. The divisions within the Naga political movement must be addressed through dialogue, reconciliation, and a renewed commitment to the collective Naga cause.

The Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) has made significant progress in reducing violence between Naga groups, but much more is needed. Reconciliation must extend beyond the cessation of violence; it must be grounded in a shared political vision that unites all Naga groups under one negotiation table. The FA and AP, despite the GoI’s attempts to undermine them, still hold the potential to serve as the foundation for this unity. Naga leaders must rally behind these agreements and demand that the GoI engage in a single, inclusive negotiation process that honors the commitments made in both accords.

Conclusion: Time to Reclaim the Naga Political Narrative
The Government of India’s strategy of delay and division has become unmistakably clear: by fostering internal discord and advancing regional demands like the Frontier Nagaland proposal, it seeks to fracture the collective Naga identity. While the demand for a Frontier Nagaland state is a legitimate expression of the Eastern Nagas’ grievances, Naga leaders must be cautious not to let this regional demand overshadow the larger, more critical goal of an honourable and inclusive Naga political settlement that benefits all Nagas.

As an Eastern Naga, I fully vouch for the validity of the Frontier Nagaland demand. The people of Eastern Nagaland have faced long-standing neglect, underdevelopment, and inequities. However, we must also recognize that pursuing this demand in isolation, without resolving the larger Naga political issue, risks undermining the collective aspirations of the Naga people. The Framework Agreement and Agreed Position represent the path towards a comprehensive solution, and these must remain the foundation of Naga unity. A political settlement that is honourable and acceptable to all Nagas is a far greater achievement, one that will empower us to determine the future administrative structure of our homeland according to our collective will.

The time for division is over. Naga leaders must rise above their differences and reclaim the political narrative by presenting a united front. The future of the Naga political movement depends on their ability to prioritize unity over factionalism, focus on the broader aspirations of the Naga people, and demand a comprehensive resolution to the Naga political issue. The Framework Agreement acknowledges the unique history and right to self-determination of the Naga people–this is the foundation upon which our collective future must be built.

However, unity cannot be achieved through rhetoric alone; it requires concrete action. Organizations like the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) must foster dialogue among all factions, but achieving unity will take the collective commitment of Naga political groups, civil society organizations, and the general populace. The movement must remain representative of all Nagas, transcending regional, tribal, and political affiliations. Only through an inclusive and unified approach can we safeguard the future of the Naga cause.

The Government of India, for its part, must be held accountable for its role in delaying the peace process. The Naga people, through united leadership, must remind the GoI that the peace agreements are not just political documents to be shelved indefinitely. They represent a solemn commitment to resolving a long-standing conflict. Naga leaders must also engage strategically with regional and international stakeholders, ensuring that the Naga issue remains on the agenda and cannot be ignored or side-lined.

At this critical juncture, it is important to recognize that the pursuit of Frontier Nagaland is not in opposition to the broader Naga cause. However, its timing and promotion by the GoI could serve to weaken the overall Naga political movement. The grievances of Eastern Nagaland must be addressed within the framework of the larger Naga political solution, not as a separate entity that risks further division. By doing so, the movement can present itself as inclusive and forward-looking, capable of addressing internal challenges while striving for a unified future.

The road to reconciliation and unity will not be easy, but it is the only path that ensures the survival of the Naga identity, history, and political aspirations. The longer the Naga movement remains fragmented, the more the GoI will exploit these divisions to delay a meaningful resolution. The future of the Naga people depends on their ability to rally behind a common cause, to stand firm in their demands for justice, and to reject the politics of division.

It is time for Naga leaders to lead with vision, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to unity. Only then can the Naga people hope to achieve the just and honourable solution they have long fought for–one that respects their unique history, political identity, and rightful place within the region. The world is watching, and history will remember those who stood up for the cause of unity and justice, just as it will remember those who allowed divisions to erode the Naga political movement from within.

Kuknalim!

Disclaimer: The perspectives and opinions expressed in this article are a careful reflection of the author’s observations regarding the current political scenario. The author neither supports nor opposes any particular political group or faction, nor subscribes to any specific ideology. This article is a call for thoughtful reflection on the Naga issue, urging readers–both Naga and non-Naga alike–to critically engage with the content and reflect on the broader implications of division and unity within the Naga political movement. It is a fervent request to all Nagas to prioritize constructive dialogue and work towards a solution that ensures justice, peace, and unity for all.

: Noktan Konyak Naga