Naga society places great value on tribe, village and clan. These identities provide belonging, solidarity and a sense of security. But when attachment to one’s own group is accompanied by suspicion of others, solidarity can turn into tribalism, village-ism and an entrenched “us versus them” mentality. Could some of this be rooted in collective trauma?
A community that has experienced prolonged conflict, loss, injustice or uncertainty may develop a heightened sensitivity to perceived threats. The memory of past injuries can shape how present events are interpreted. A disagreement may be seen not as an isolated dispute but as another attempt to undermine one’s community. Criticism becomes an attack, compromise becomes weakness, and defending one’s group becomes more important than examining whether its position is justified.
In Naga society, where identity and community ties remain central to social life, such defensiveness can reinforce existing divisions. Grievances may pass from one generation to another, while stories of past wrongs strengthen the belief that others cannot be trusted. Even when the original circumstances change, the suspicion can survive.
This does not mean that every grievance is imagined or that historical injustices should be forgotten. Nor can tribalism be explained by trauma alone. Political interests, competition over resources and the protection of customary rights also shape group behaviour. The challenge is to distinguish legitimate vigilance from a reflexive suspicion that treats every difference as a threat.
The danger is that insecurity can become self-perpetuating. Each group sees its own actions as defensive and the other’s as aggressive. In trying to protect itself, each reinforces the fears of the other. The result is a society in which solidarity within one’s group may coexist with growing distrust beyond it.
Healing does not require Naga people to abandon their tribal, village or clan identities. It requires recognising that these identities need not be built on the exclusion of others. Historical memory should help us understand the past, not imprison us in it.
Perhaps the question is not whether we have enough reasons to defend our own, but whether we have become so accustomed to feeling threatened that we struggle to trust anyone beyond them. A society cannot build a shared future if every community sees itself as an island surrounded by potential adversaries.
