Nagalim Voice September 2026
Would the Leaders of Indian Independence Be Proud of their Government’s suppression of the Nagas’ Rights to Self-Determination?
India recently celebrated the 80th anniversary of its independence, and the Nagas, too, celebrated their independence a day prior to India. While for India it is a day of jubilation, for the Nagas, it is a reminder of the suppression and unlawful occupation of Nagalim by India. The Naga freedom struggle continues; the occupier’s flag has changed.
India’s freedom struggle was a fight against the principle that one people could impose its will on another. The leaders of Indian independence were not only fighting for the transfer of power from foreign rule to self-rule. They were challenging the very idea of subjugation, humiliation, and denial of political and cultural autonomy.
And so, the question arises: would the great leaders of India’s independence movement be happy to see their government going on a subjugation binge? Would they be okay with their leaders silencing other people’s voices and imposing their will?
While it is hard to say with certainty how Indian independence heroes would have reacted to today’s developments, I think the principles they enshrined give us enough guidance.
From Subjects to Citizens
The British authorities’ claim to the right to rule was based on the assumption that they had the right to impose their will on the people of India. India’s independence movement’s objective was to put an end to this state of affairs. It should be remembered that the freedom movement did not only entail replacing one set of rulers with another. It aimed to shift the power dynamics between the rulers and the ruled. The struggle did not only seek to stop blatant injustice; it sought to change a situation in which people had to rely on the government’s grace for their personal freedoms.
This principle should also apply to people living within the borders of the Republic of India, even those arbitrarily placed under it. If the anti-colonialist struggle has taught us anything, it is that having one’s own government does not automatically make one free. It only changes the faces in power. The instruments of oppression remain more or less the same – the only difference is that they are now being used by a government that was once also subject to the same colonial rules.
The Forgotten Lesson of Freedom
India’s freedom was a joyous event for the Indians. However, for the Naga people and others in the region, the situation is different. For the Nagas, the events of 1947 were followed by the long and grievous experience of being ruled, oppressed, and subjugated by a different flag. The pattern continues. Many books have been written on it. This may well be another on the matter.
The Nagas, who are historically accustomed to exercising their own political power and governance, declared their independence from British rule on 14th August 1947, a day ahead of India’s declaration of Independence. India’s occupation of Nagalim from 1956 onwards meant the Nagas were once again placed in the position of subjects to another foreign power. While it is obvious that Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Free India, was instrumental in the oppression and subjugation of the Nagas, the events that happened to the Nagas may have been disappointing for Subhas Chandra Bose. One may assume that Bose, though having turned to Germany and the Japanese Empire for help in creating an independent India, would not be especially enthusiastic about his countrymen calling for his government’s subjugation of the Nagas.
It must be said that Bose’s turn to Germany and Imperial Japan was also a result of the circumstances of the time. There was no other way for him to get the military support needed to challenge British rule.
While no Indian leader actively and openly considers returning to the practice of territorial conquest and colonial rule, such ideas have, unfortunately, not disappeared altogether. In today’s India, the use of colonial governors’ methods to deal with their subjects (Nagas) remains very strong. India has adopted the same colonial’s policies, once primarily used against them, to suppress the rights and aspirations of the Nagas.
The Meaning of Independence
It may help to remember how important independence was to the people who fought for it. India’s freedom fighters laid down their lives for their motherland and the right of their country to rule itself. Their memory and sacrifices live on in streets, government buildings, airports, and railway stations named after them. However, India also has a responsibility to remember not only their names but their ideals.
India’s independence struggle was not only a fight for self-governance and an end to foreign rule. It was a fight for justice, for a more humane way of life.
If India’s independence meant that its people should accept the subjugation of others in the name of territorial integrity or national pride, it should hardly be worth achieving.
What Would Gandhi Say?
Gandhi’s position on the Nagas is clear. His solemn commitment made to the delegation of the Naga leaders on 19th July 1947 at Bhangi Colony, Delhi, where he said, and I quote, “Nagas have every right to be Independent. I believe in the brotherhood of man, but I do not believe in force Unions. If you (Nagas) do not wish to join the Union of India, nobody will force you to do that. Sir Akbar is wrong. He cannot do that. I will come to the Naga Hills; I will ask them to shoot me first before one Naga is shot.”
Gandhi detested domination in all its forms. He advocated universal respect for different points of view, even when those views are held by people who have chosen to follow another power. His position on the matter of subjugation of other peoples was, quite simply, unwavering. He believed that no Government had the right to subjugate another people. Gandhi would most likely be unhappy to hear that his government has imposed its will on the Naga people.
For Gandhi, India’s security also meant respecting people’s right to choose their path and live in peace. Gandhi did not believe in the superiority of any particular race or nation. He believed that relations between peoples should be based on human values. I think that if Gandhi were alive today, a free, sovereign Naga nation, friendly to India, would exist.
Dr. Ambedkar’s Vision
As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr BR Ambedkar fought to create a progressive Constitution that would guarantee Indians equality, personal freedoms, and justice. For Ambedkar, the draft Constitution was a tool to ensure that no group of people in India would consider itself superior to others. Ambedkar belonged to a disadvantaged group and spent much of his life fighting for the rights of the oppressed. He understood what it meant to be humiliated and disempowered. It would be difficult for him to accept the situation when the authorities in New Delhi patronizingly dictate terms to people in the Northeast. I think Ambedkar would not support his government’s colonial ambition, simply because it contradicted the principles of social justice and equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Ambedkar would have been the first to stand up for the rights of the people to form their own state if his views were to be applied consistently. Secession from the Union of India also meant abandoning the principle of territorial integrity and national security, which Ambedkar explicitly endorsed. However, because the historical and political rights of the Nagas differ from those of other Indian states, it is reasonable to assume that, when it came to the Nagas, Dr. Ambedkar would have been among the first to fight for their rights. Documented evidence backs this claim.
Would They Be Proud?
Would Gandhi be proud? Would Ambedkar? Would Bose? Would the countless Indians who went to jail, were shot at, lost their jobs, and even sacrificed their lives for the sake of their motherland? We can only guess at what these great men would say if they saw independent India on a neo-colonialism spree. However, we know what they fought for and what they wanted India to be like after they had finished their work. Let us return to these principles, which enshrined the ideals of India’s independence movement.
What did they fight for?
They fought for their right to rule themselves. They fought for the right to decide their own future. They fought for their homeland and their culture. They fought for dignity, self-development, and self-knowledge. They fought for people’s right to choose their path. They fought to abolish the principle of domination.
India fought for its independence from an empire because it believed that no one should be governed as an unwilling subject. The challenge India faces today is to ensure that, in exercising the sovereignty it has acquired, it does not forget the lesson that enabled it to gain its freedom.
The ultimate tribute India can give to her freedom fighters is not to repeat their slogans, but to uphold the values that made those slogans meaningful. India’s great leaders did not fight for domination; they fought to end it. And so should the progeny of Free India.
If freedom from imperial power was good enough for India, it is also good enough for the Nagas.