Naga People's Delimitation Dilemma — Will It Harm The State's Peace?

The Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) have called upon the Nagaland state government to take urgent steps regarding the proposed delimitation of Assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies, a move that has sparked significant political and social debate. This demand follows the Supreme Court’s recent directive to conduct delimitation in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland.

The NNPGs have opposed this process, citing concerns over outdated census data and its potential impact on tribal representation in the state. Delimitation in Nagaland is shaping up to be a crucial political issue, not just for administrative reasons but also due to its deep connection to the ongoing Naga peace process.

The NNPGs, a coalition of seven historic Naga political groups, argue that delimitation should be deferred until the agreements between the Government of India and Naga representatives are fully implemented. The current delimitation exercise, they argue, undermines these hard-fought agreements. What is the Naga struggle? Why is delimitation necessary? Why is it being opposed?

The Legacy of the Naga Struggle

The Naga political movement has its roots in the early 20th century when Naga leaders sought autonomy from British colonial rule. The Naga National Council (NNC) was formed in 1946 as a political body advocating for Naga independence.

Under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the NNC declared Naga independence on August 14, 1947, a day before India’s own independence from British rule. This move set the stage for a prolonged and often violent struggle between the Nagas and the Indian state.

Following India’s independence, the Government of India sought to integrate Nagaland into the Indian Union, leading to growing tensions between Naga nationalists and the Indian state. In 1952, the NNC established the Naga Federal Government (NFG) and the Naga Federal Army (NFA), escalating the conflict into an armed insurgency.

The Indian government responded with military action, imposing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in the region, which granted sweeping powers to security forces and led to decades of conflict. The 1960s saw efforts to negotiate peace, resulting in the formation of Nagaland as the 16th state of India in 1963.

However, many Naga factions, particularly those aligned with the NNC, rejected statehood, viewing it as a compromise that fell short of their goal of full sovereignty. The insurgency continued, with the Indian state deploying more troops to suppress the movement.

By the 1970s, the NNC had weakened due to internal divisions and pressure from the Indian government. In 1975, the Shillong Accord was signed between the Indian government and a faction of the NNC, in which Naga leaders agreed to renounce armed struggle.

However, this agreement was rejected by hardline Naga nationalists, leading to the formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980 under the leadership of Thuingaleng Muivah, Isak Chishi Swu, and S.S. Khaplang. The NSCN quickly became the dominant insurgent group, continuing the fight for Naga sovereignty.

However, ideological and leadership disputes led to a major split in 1988, dividing the NSCN into two factions: NSCN (IM), led by Muivah and Swu, and NSCN (K), led by Khaplang. The two factions engaged in violent clashes, further complicating the Naga struggle.

Despite the internal conflicts, the NSCN factions retained significant influence over Naga society, operating parallel governments that controlled local governance and maintained strong links with Naga tribal councils. The NSCN (IM) in particular established itself as the primary negotiating entity with the Indian government, advocating for a Greater Nagalim that would encompass Naga-inhabited areas in neighboring states and Myanmar.

The Indo-Naga Peace Process

By the late 1990s, after decades of violence and a growing realization that armed conflict alone could not achieve Naga aspirations, the Indian government initiated peace talks with NSCN (IM). A ceasefire agreement was signed in 1997, leading to two decades of negotiations.

In parallel, several smaller Naga insurgent groups consolidated under the NNPGs, which eventually entered their own negotiations with the Indian government. A breakthrough came in 2015 when the Indian government and NSCN (IM) signed the Framework Agreement, signaling a commitment to finding a political solution to the Naga issue.

Four years later, in 2019, political negotiations with both NSCN (IM) and NNPGs concluded, with an agreement to expand the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and increase Lok Sabha representation for Nagaland’s tribal communities. The NNPGs, consisting of former NNC and NSCN members mostly from the Khaplang-led faction, played a crucial role in ensuring that the peace process included diverse Naga voices.

Formed as an alternative negotiating body to the dominant NSCN (IM), the seven-party coalition NNPGs have positioned themselves as pragmatic actors within the NSCN (K) willing to work towards a political solution within Nagaland’s existing framework.

Their involvement in peace negotiations with the Indian government led to key agreements, including the expansion of legislative representation, which they now see as being threatened by the delimitation process.

Their participation in negotiations provided a counterbalance to NSCN (IM)’s dominance, broadening the scope of discussions and strengthening the legitimacy of the agreed-upon political solutions. However, as the current delimitation process unfolds, NNPGs fear that the agreements reached during the peace talks are being undermined.

The delimitation exercise, they argue, does not take into account the political realities established through decades of negotiations and agreements. If the Indian government proceeds without addressing these concerns, it risks reigniting tensions and jeopardizing the fragile peace that has been maintained in Nagaland since 2019.

The Supreme Court’s Directive and Naga Opposition

The Supreme Court’s directive to carry out the delimitation process in Nagaland, along with Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur, has sparked widespread opposition from the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs) and other Naga political entities. Delimitation, which involves redrawing electoral constituencies to reflect population changes, is typically seen as a necessary administrative procedure.

However, in the case of Nagaland, it carries deep political and historical significance. The NNPGs argue that the process disregards the agreements reached during the Indo-Naga peace talks, potentially undermining years of negotiations.

According to the 2019 agreements, Nagaland’s Legislative Assembly was to be expanded from 60 to 80 seats to ensure fair representation for all 17 Naga tribes. Additionally, the state’s Lok Sabha seats were set to increase from one to three.

The NNPGs fear that the current delimitation initiative, if carried out without considering these political commitments, could not only reduce tribal representation but also threaten the fragile peace in the region. One of the NNPGs’ primary objections to the delimitation process is the use of outdated census data.

The last official census in India was conducted in 2011, and demographic patterns in Nagaland have shifted significantly in the years since. The NNPGs argue that relying on decade-old figures will result in an inaccurate representation of tribal populations, leading to an unfair distribution of political power.

This could have far-reaching consequences for governance in Nagaland, where tribal identity plays a central role in political decision-making. Any perceived imbalance in representation could reignite historical rivalries and tensions among various Naga factions.

For this reason, the NNPGs have demanded that delimitation be postponed until a fresh and comprehensive census is conducted, ensuring that constituency boundaries accurately reflect present-day realities. For context, it is important to know that there is no tribe called “Naga” in the first place.

Naga is a political identity that ties together various Indo-Mogoloid tribes such as Angami, Ao, Chakhesang, Chang, Khemungan, Konyak, Lotha, Phom, Pochury, Rengma, Sangtam, Sema, Yimchunger, and Zeliang. Beyond concerns about outdated data, the NNPGs fear that delimitation could alter the existing balance of tribal representation in a way that favors some communities over others.

Nagaland’s Assembly seats have historically been distributed based on tribal demographics, with each Naga tribe receiving representation proportional to its population. Any changes introduced through the delimitation process could shift this balance, potentially reducing the political influence of certain tribes while increasing the power of others.

Given the strong role that tribal identity plays in Naga politics, such an outcome could lead to fresh disputes over representation and governance. The NNPGs argue that the agreements reached during peace talks already provided a framework for fair tribal representation, and they see the government’s push for delimitation as a betrayal of those commitments.

The Link Between Delimitation and RIIN

The delimitation controversy is further complicated by the parallel issue of the Registration of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN). Based on the National Register for Citizens (NRC) done in Assam, RIIN seeks to identify and document the genuine indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland to prevent outsiders from fraudulently obtaining indigenous status for government jobs, land rights, and welfare benefits.

The Nagaland government launched the RIIN exercise in July 2019, forming a three-member committee tasked with defining eligibility criteria for indigenous status, determining the appropriate authorities to authenticate claims, establishing the location of registration, and setting the basis for proof of indigenous identity.

The process was meant to be carried out through an extensive survey, with district administrations compiling village-wise and ward-wise lists of indigenous inhabitants based on historical records. However, the initiative quickly faced widespread resistance from the NNPGs, NSCN factions, community-based organizations and tribal bodies.

Despite the setback, the Nagaland government has been attempting to revive the initiative, arguing that it is necessary to safeguard indigenous rights against demographic and economic pressures posed by migration and settlement by non-Nagas. At the heart of the controversy is the proposed cut-off date of December 1, 1963, the day Nagaland became a state, as the benchmark for determining permanent residency.

Many Naga organizations oppose this provision, arguing that it arbitrarily excludes thousands of ethnic Nagas who migrated into Nagaland from neighboring states like Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, as well as from Myanmar, over the decades. Historically, the Naga homeland has extended beyond the state’s present boundaries, and migration between these regions has been common.

The Naga tribes in these areas share the same cultural heritage, traditions, and ancestral lineage as those residing within Nagaland’s state borders. However, due to the proposed cut-off date, many Nagas who moved into Nagaland after 1963 would risk being categorized as non-indigenous, despite their ethnic identity.

This has raised concerns that the RIIN could inadvertently create divisions among Nagas, disrupting the long-standing concept of pan-Naga unity, which has been a fundamental principle of the Naga nationalist movement. Another key concern is the potential loss of property and land rights.

Over the years, many Nagas from outside Nagaland have purchased land, built homes and settled in the state for generations. Under RIIN, much like the NRC, those who fail to meet the documentation requirements—such as proof of land ownership, tax receipts, or electoral rolls dating back to 1963—could face legal challenges regarding their residency status.

Given that land in Nagaland is largely held under tribal customary law, which does not always rely on formal legal documentation, many indigenous families might struggle to provide the necessary paperwork to prove their status. This could lead to procedural anomalies and bureaucratic hurdles, even for those considered “pure Nagas” within Nagaland.

Additionally, RIIN’s integration with the Inner-Line Permit (ILP) system, which regulates the entry of non-inhabitants into Nagaland, has further fueled speculation that the register could be used to impose restrictions on movement and land ownership, not just for non-Nagas but also for certain Naga populations. NNPGs also argue that RIIN could create unintended social and political consequences by formalizing distinctions between different categories of Nagas, which as mentioned above is not a singular tribal identity.

There is already a complex tribal dynamic within Nagaland, where representation and resource distribution are often contested among different tribes. The implementation of RIIN could intensify internal conflicts over who qualifies as an indigenous Naga, potentially leading to exclusion, resentment, and inter-tribal tensions.

Furthermore, there is a fear that the registration process could be influenced by political interests, with certain groups or individuals leveraging their connections to secure indigenous status while others are left out. This concern is heightened by the fact that Nagaland does not have an opposition party, meaning that government decisions often go unchallenged within the legislative framework, leaving civil society and tribal organizations as the primary voices of dissent.

The NNPGs and other Naga political groups also argue that the initiative contradicts the spirit of the Indo-Naga peace process. The Naga national movement has long been rooted in the idea of a unified Naga homeland that transcends the current state boundaries.

By imposing strict indigenous definitions based on statehood rather than ethnic identity, RIIN could undermine efforts to forge a larger Naga political and cultural identity, a cornerstone of the ongoing peace negotiations with the Indian government. There are also concerns that such a rigid framework for defining indigenous status could be weaponized by different factions, deepening divisions within the Naga nationalist movement and complicating the broader struggle for self-determination.

Given these numerous challenges, RIIN remains a deeply polarizing issue in Nagaland. While its proponents argue that it is essential to protect the rights and resources of indigenous Nagas from external encroachment, its critics warn that it could create more problems than it solves, leading to exclusion, disenfranchisement, and social instability.

The broader indigenous vs. non-indigenous debate has long been a sensitive issue in Nagaland, and there are concerns that political redistricting could be exploited to favor some factions while sidelining others. The NNPGs warn that if delimitation and RIIN are implemented without proper consultation, they could deepen existing divisions and provoke new conflicts.

Nagaland’s Unique Political Landscape

Nagaland’s political landscape is unique in India, as the state legislature currently has no opposition. This has created an unusual period of political stability, but much of this stability is due to the delicate balance between the elected government and the influence of Naga political groups such as the NNPGs and various NSCN factions.

Even though they do not hold official government positions, the NNPGs exert significant influence over governance in Nagaland through their connections with tribal councils and local administrative structures. In many ways, the NNPGs function as an alternative power center, and their ability to mobilize political and social support gives them considerable leverage in policy decisions.

Recently, the NNPGs sent a letter to Nagaland’s Chief Minister, Neiphiu Rio, urging the state government to intervene in the delimitation issue. Their letter outlined several key demands, including an immediate halt to the delimitation process.

They argued that the Nagaland state government should take a firm stand against the exercise, as it does not align with the agreements made in the Indo-Naga peace talks. The NNPGs also criticized the Union Government for failing to inform the Supreme Court about the settled position of the peace talks.

They argue that the Centre’s failure to present the full context to the judiciary has created an opportunity for judicial intervention that could derail the carefully negotiated agreements between the Indian government and the Naga political groups. The NNPGs’ resistance to delimitation is not simply about technicalities—it reflects a broader concern about the future of Naga political rights.

If the Indian government moves forward with delimitation without addressing the NNPGs’ concerns, it risks alienating key Naga stakeholders and undoing years of progress in the peace process. The possibility of the NNPGs withdrawing from their commitment to the peace process looms large, and such a move could have serious consequences.

Historically, failed agreements and perceived betrayals have fueled insurgencies in Nagaland, and there is a real risk that a similar situation could unfold if the NNPGs feel sidelined. The timing of these developments is particularly concerning given the broader geopolitical situation in the Northeast.

With ongoing tensions in neighboring Manipur and instability along the India-Myanmar border, any renewed conflict in Nagaland could have significant regional ramifications. Several Naga insurgent factions maintain a presence in Myanmar, and an escalation of tensions in Nagaland could have ripple effects across the Indo-Myanmar border.

Additionally, unrest in Nagaland could strain India’s efforts to maintain stability in the Northeast, which has long been a region of complex ethnic and political conflicts. As the Indian government pushes forward with delimitation, it faces a critical decision: whether to honor its past commitments to the Naga people or prioritize legal directives over political agreements.

The NNPGs have made it clear that they see delimitation as a direct challenge to the Indo-Naga peace process. If the government does not address their concerns, it risks reigniting tensions and undoing the fragile stability that has been achieved in recent years.

The next steps taken by the state and central governments will determine whether Nagaland remains on the path to lasting peace or returns to the cycle of unrest that has defined much of its history.

A Fragile Peace at Risk

For decades, the Naga struggle has been shaped by cycles of conflict, negotiation, and fragile peace agreements. While the Indo-Naga peace process brought relative stability, the tensions surrounding the ongoing delimitation process have once again placed this hard-earned peace at risk.

The Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), which played a crucial role in the negotiations leading to the 2019 agreements, have warned that if their concerns are ignored, they may reconsider their commitment to the peace process. Such a move would mark a serious shift in Nagaland’s political trajectory, as it could lead to renewed confrontations between Naga political groups and the Indian state.

A withdrawal from the peace process by the NNPGs would not only dismantle years of political progress but could also lead to increased factionalism within Naga society. The unity displayed by the NSCN(IM) and NNPGs in their negotiations with the Indian government has been an essential factor in maintaining peace.

However, if they disengage from the process, it could create space for splinter groups to pursue more radical approaches, including armed resistance. Nagaland’s history is a testament to the dangers of broken agreements.

Past betrayals by successive Indian governments have directly contributed to the rise of insurgent groups, prolonging conflict in the region. The Shillong Accord of 1975, for example, was intended to bring peace but instead led to the emergence of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), which would go on to become one of the most powerful insurgent factions in the Northeast.

Similarly, the 1997 ceasefire with NSCN (IM) did not lead to an immediate solution but instead resulted in factional splits and prolonged instability. If the current delimitation dispute leads to yet another breakdown in trust, the region could witness a resurgence of armed militancy.

The possibility of the NNPGs breaking away from the peace process would not just impact Nagaland—it could reignite insurgent activities across the entire Naga-inhabited region, including parts of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and even Myanmar, where several Naga groups continue to operate.

Many factions still possess significant military capabilities, and with mounting frustration over the government’s handling of Naga issues, there is a real risk that some groups may return to armed struggle as a means of asserting their demands. Complicating matters further is the fact that the NSCN (IM), which remains a key player in Naga politics, has not fully accepted a final peace agreement with India.

Although they have engaged in negotiations, their demand for a separate Naga page in the Indian passport and flag remains unresolved. If the NNPGs feel betrayed and step away from the peace process, it could push the NSCN (IM) to take a harder stance, further delaying any potential resolution to the Naga issue.

Geopolitical Implications in the Northeast

Nagaland’s internal struggles are not isolated from the broader geopolitical landscape of India’s Northeast. Any political instability in Nagaland could have ripple effects across the region, particularly in states like Manipur, which is already grappling with ethnic violence.

The recent clashes between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities in Manipur have heightened tensions across the Northeast, and a renewed Naga conflict would only add to the volatility. Furthermore, the porous Indo-Myanmar border has long been a safe haven for insurgent groups, including various Naga factions.

A breakdown of the peace process in Nagaland could encourage factions operating in Myanmar to escalate their activities, further complicating India’s security situation. Given that Myanmar itself is experiencing political turmoil following the military coup of 2021, a resurgence of Naga insurgency could lead to cross-border conflicts, affecting both India’s internal stability and its diplomatic relations with Myanmar.

China’s strategic interests in the Northeast also add another layer of complexity. Historically, China has provided support to insurgent groups in the region, including the NSCN factions.

If tensions in Nagaland escalate, there is a possibility that external actors could exploit the situation to further destabilize India’s northeastern frontier. The Indian government must therefore tread carefully, ensuring that its handling of the delimitation issue does not inadvertently push Naga groups toward seeking external support.

The unfolding delimitation controversy presents a crucial test for the Indian government and the Nagaland state leadership. The NNPGs have drawn a clear line, demanding that the agreements reached in 2019 be honored before any redrawing of constituencies takes place.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s directive mandates that delimitation be carried out, putting the Nagaland state government in a difficult position. Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio faces a tough choice—whether to stand with the NNPGs and push for a delay in delimitation or to comply with the legal directives from the Centre and judiciary.

If the Nagaland government chooses to support the NNPGs’ demands, it risks a confrontation with the Union Government. However, if it follows through with delimitation without addressing the NNPGs’ concerns, it may face strong backlash from Naga political groups, potentially leading to unrest.

The broader question that looms over this issue is whether India is genuinely committed to fulfilling its promises to the Naga people. The Indo-Naga peace process was meant to be a historic resolution to one of India’s longest-running conflicts.

However, the current delimitation controversy suggests that political maneuvering may once again take precedence over honoring past agreements. If the government fails to uphold the commitments made to the Naga people, it risks undoing decades of progress and reigniting conflict in the region.

At the heart of the matter is the question of trust. The NNPGs and the Naga people have engaged in negotiations in good faith, believing that their demands for greater representation and political recognition would be met.

If these assurances turn out to be hollow, the consequences could be severe. History has shown that broken agreements in Nagaland have consistently led to further insurgency, and this time may be no different.

The future of Nagaland’s political stability now hangs in the balance. The coming months will determine whether the Indian government can navigate this delicate situation without sparking renewed conflict.

The decision to proceed with delimitation or to honor the NNPGs’ demands will shape not just Nagaland’s future but also the broader security and stability of India’s Northeast. Will the Indian state finally fulfill its commitments, or will it once again allow legal mandates to override political aspirations?

The answer to this question will decide whether Nagaland remains on the path to peace or re-enters a period of uncertainty and unrest.