NATIONAL SOCIALIST COUNCIL OF NAGALIM
The Hague: 29-30 August 2026
XXI UNPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Advancing Peace: The Indo-Naga Political Process, Historical Justice, and the Imperative of a Principled Political Settlement
Respected Chairperson, distinguished delegates, esteemed observers, scholars, and honoured representatives of nations and peoples, ladies and gentlemen,
I stand before this august assembly with profound respect for the principles that have guided the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization for decades: the peaceful pursuit of justice, the dignity of peoples, respect for human rights, and the resolution of political conflicts through dialogue rather than violence. These principles are not merely institutional ideals; they represent humanity’s collective aspiration to resolve historical disputes through wisdom rather than force and through mutual respect rather than domination.
The Naga political question deserves to be understood within this universal framework. It is neither a temporary political disagreement nor merely a regional administrative issue. It is a historical and political question that has evolved over decades of negotiations, sacrifices, ceasefire arrangements, and internationally recognised political dialogue. Any meaningful discussion about the future of the Indo-Naga political process must therefore begin with an honest engagement with history rather than with selective political narratives.
History reminds us that durable peace cannot emerge from military superiority alone. From Northern Ireland to Aceh, from Bougainville to Mindanao, history demonstrates that political conflicts ultimately require political solutions, demerged not because one side surrendered its identity but because political courage replaced political expediency. The same principle applies to the Indo-Naga political negotiations.
The initiation of high-level political engagement during the tenure of Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao marked a significant departure from earlier state approaches by acknowledging the necessity of political dialogue in addressing the Naga question. This shift laid the foundation for subsequent peace initiatives, culminating in the 1997 ceasefire, which created the political space necessary for sustained negotiations and substantially reduced the intensity of large-scale armed confrontation. While successive governments have formally continued the peace process, the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi has yet to translate prolonged dialogue into a definitive political settlement. Despite engagements with Naga political groups, the absence of a concrete and mutually acceptable resolution has raised critical questions regarding the extent of India’s political commitment, strategic consistency, and the exercise of the political will required to bring the protracted Naga political issue to a durable and just conclusion.
My purpose today is not to inflame passions but to invite principled reflection grounded in history, diplomacy, and the pursuit of a just peace.
The Historical Question
Any serious discussion of the Naga issue must begin with history rather than expediency. The Naga political movement did not emerge in a vacuum. It developed during the late colonial period through institutions such as the Naga Club and later the Naga National Council, which articulated a distinct political identity and sought recognition of the Nagas as a people with the right to determine their own political future.
The post-1947 period marked a decisive turning point. As the Indian Union consolidated its territorial and constitutional framework, sections of the Naga leadership resisted incorporation into the Indian state. The conflict that followed was not simply a law-and-order problem; it was a contest over political authority, identity, and consent. The deployment of extraordinary security measures, including the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) of 1958, became one of the most controversial aspects of this history. Human rights organisations, civil society groups, and legal scholars have long debated the implications of AFSPA for democratic accountability, civil liberties, and conflict resolution.
Yet history must be approached with intellectual honesty. The question before us is not whether suffering occurred; there is substantial documentation that it did on multiple sides, but whether coercive approaches can produce lasting political legitimacy. The Naga experience suggests that military management of a political conflict cannot substitute for a durable political settlement.
From Confrontation to Negotiation
A critical transformation occurred in the 1990s. The Government of India’s engagement with the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) (NSCN-IM) represented an important acknowledgement that the conflict required a political rather than purely security-based response. The 1997 ceasefire created the conditions for political dialogue, and the negotiations that followed became one of the most sustained peace processes in contemporary South Asia.
What makes the Indo-Naga talks historically significant is not merely their duration, spanning hundreds of rounds of negotiations; rather, the principles on which they were initiated: unconditional dialogue, engagement at the highest political level, and the involvement of neutral venues during initial key phases of the process. These features reflected a recognition that trust-building required political parity in the negotiating environment, even if the parties differed fundamentally on questions of sovereignty.
The Amsterdam Joint Communiqué and the Framework Agreement
Two milestones deserve particular attention: the Amsterdam Joint Communiqué of 11 July 2002 and the Framework Agreement of 3 August 2015.
From the Naga perspective, these agreements are important because they recognise the “unique history and situation” of the Nagas. This phrase has acquired profound symbolic and political significance. It is interpreted that the Nagas interpret it as an acknowledgement that the Naga question cannot be reduced to an ordinary administrative issue within the Indian Union.
The 2015 Framework Agreement further deepened expectations by emphasising a “new relationship” and the concept of shared sovereignty or shared competencies in certain domains. Here lies the central diplomatic challenge: the agreement’s language is intentionally broad, allowing different interpretations. The Government of India has generally viewed the framework as compatible with the Indian constitutional order, whereas many Naga negotiators have understood it as recognising a relationship between distinct political entities. This divergence is not a mere semantic disagreement; it is the heart of the current impasse.
The Crisis of Interpretive Asymmetry
Allow me to advance a proposition that may help international observers understand why the peace process has stalled despite apparent breakthroughs. The Indo-Naga negotiations suffer from what I call “interpretive asymmetry.” Both parties signed the same documents, yet they attached different constitutional meanings to them. One side understood the agreements as pathways to an enhanced political arrangement within an existing sovereign framework; the other understood them as affirmations of a historically grounded political status that could not be fully absorbed into that framework.
This asymmetry explains why symbols such as the Naga flag and constitution have become so contentious. To many outside observers, these may appear merely symbolic demands. However, in conflicts involving indigenous peoples and contested political identities, symbols often embody questions of dignity, historical continuity, and collective recognition. Peace processes fail when they treat identity as negotiable but power as fixed.
Interrogation of the Peace Process
A decade after the Framework Agreement, legitimate questions arise. Has the process generated sufficient transparency? Have the negotiated understandings been communicated clearly to the Naga public? Has the Government of India demonstrated the political will necessary to translate broad principles into enforceable institutional arrangements?
At the same time, critical scrutiny must apply to all stakeholders. Sustainable peace requires inclusive dialogue among Naga political groups, tribal bodies, civil society organisations, women’s groups, youth representatives, and neighbouring communities affected by the conflict. A settlement perceived as exclusive or imposed risks reproducing instability rather than resolving it. The challenge, therefore, is not simply India versus the Nagas; it is how to construct a political architecture that commands legitimacy across a deeply plural social landscape.
International Law and Indigenous Rights
The Naga question also intersects with broader international debates on self-determination, indigenous rights, and negotiated autonomy. International law does not provide a simple formula for resolving such conflicts. However, contemporary norms, including the UN Charter and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, emphasise participation, consent, cultural integrity, and meaningful self-governance. Importantly, international engagement need not be equated with external interference. The role of the international community can be constructive: encouraging transparency, supporting confidence-building measures, documenting human rights concerns, and promoting dialogue consistent with democratic and peaceful principles.
The Present Moment: Opportunity or Exhaustion?
Naga stands at a critical juncture. The peace process has endured for nearly three decades. Prolonged negotiations without visible outcomes risk producing peace fatigue, a condition in which communities lose confidence in dialogue itself. Such fatigue is dangerous because it can create space for polarisation, mistrust, and renewed instability.
The answer, however, is not a return to confrontation. The answer is political courage. For India, political courage means honouring the spirit of its commitments and recognising that durable unity is strengthened by consent, not diminished by accommodation. For Naga leaders, political courage means maintaining internal cohesion, engaging plural voices, and articulating a settlement that secures dignity, identity, and democratic accountability for future generations.
Contemporary developments have intensified concerns among many Naga political observers and scholars regarding what they perceive as the Government of India’s continued insincerity in addressing the Naga political issue. Rather than pursuing a principled and durable political settlement, critics argue that New Delhi has adopted a strategy of fragmentation by cultivating competing political actors and reinforcing existing ethnic divisions. Within this perspective, the mobilisation of Kuki groups and other political instruments is interpreted as part of a broader divide-and-rule approach designed to weaken Naga political cohesion and dilute the collective aspiration for self-determination. This underscores the profound crisis of trust that continues to impede a just and sustainable resolution of the Naga question.
A Diplomatic Path Forward
I respectfully submit five principles for a viable settlement:
Recognition of historical distinctiveness without erasing contemporary realities.
Constitutionally guaranteed political competencies that are negotiated rather than unilaterally granted.
Protection of Naga identity, culture, and institutions through legally enforceable mechanisms.
Inclusive consultation involving all affected communities.
Internationally observed implementation benchmarks to ensure that agreements are not reduced to political symbolism.
These principles do not predetermine the final constitutional outcome. Rather, they establish the conditions under which trust can be rebuilt.
Conclusion
Distinguished delegates,
The Indo-Naga peace process now stands at a historic crossroads. It possesses decades of accumulated dialogue, institutional experience, and political engagement. Few conflicts in the world have invested so extensively in negotiations over such a long period. This history should not culminate in fatigue. It should culminate in courage. The Naga people seek recognition that their political aspirations emerge from a distinct historical experience, not from transient grievance. India seeks stability, territorial integrity, and democratic legitimacy. A durable settlement must speak to both realities.
The world has witnessed too many peace processes collapse because agreements were celebrated before they were understood. The task before us is therefore not merely to sign documents but to reconcile interpretations, restore trust, and create institutions capable of sustaining peace beyond the tenure of any government or movement.
Let this forum affirm a simple but profound principle: When a conflict has been acknowledged as political, its resolution must be pursued through political honesty, mutual respect, and the courage to translate negotiated principles into lived reality. The Nagas are not asking the world for charity; they are asking the world to recognise that peace without dignity is fragile, and dignity without dialogue is incomplete.
Thanking you and Kuknalim.
Mr. Apam Muivah
Steering Committee Member & Co-Ordinator, Alee (Foreign) Affairs, Europe