Background:
The circumstances which assisted the British to enter the North Eastern Frontier of India was the result of Burmese expansionism during the first quarter of the 19th Century. Beginning from January, 1824 British trading centres in the extreme corners and edges of Bengal came under attacks from the marauding Burmese forces. Prior to these attacks, Burma had over run the minor State of Manipur in 1819, followed thereafter by taking control of the fractured kingdom of Assam in 1825. To protect its colonial interest in Bengal and India, the British had to evict the Burmese from Bengal, Assam and Manipur. The marauding Burmese forces in Bengal were successfully pushed out by the early month of 1826.
In the following 1st Anglo-Burmese War of 1826, the British defeated and pushed the Burmese out of Assam and Manipur and further defeated the Burmese in Burma. Despite the successful conclusion of the war in its favour, the British began to formulate a defensive plan against future attacks from Burma. The plan was to transform Manipur and Assam into strong buffer zones. For this purpose, all the Southern Naga Hills encircling the valley were added into Manipur in 1834 as a defensive structure against Burma. In addition, the valley areas from the banks of the Ningthee (Chindwin) River in Burma up to the Eastern Naga Hill Ranges of Manipur facing the Kabo valley of Burma were also added into Manipur. The Southern Naga Hills which were added into Manipur were however left outside the jurisdiction of the Raja of Manipur. It was to be administered solely by the British Protectorate of Manipur. The exercise of adding the Southern Naga Hills into Manipur, however gave a de-jure boundary recognition to Manipur for the very first time.
In Assam, the British had to frequently deal with Naga raids on its colonies such as plantations, tea gardens and the marketing areas. To put a stop on the Naga raids, it had not only to resist the raiding parties, but also had to retaliate against the raiding parties, the tribes or even the concerned villages. To make its presence felt, armed forces were kept ready and available for action. For establishing law and order and for defensive purposes, the first Naga Hills District was formed at Samaguting (now Chumukedima) in 1866. The Naga Hills District was thereafter transferred and added into Assam as a the Naga Hills District of Assam! To contain other Naga areas, Sub-Divisions were opened in the Lotha Naga areas of Wokha in 1875 and later in the Ao Naga areas in 1889. Similarly, the rest of the Naga regions followed and important Naga areas such as those of the Semas, Rengmas, Konyak areas, etc, were taken over one after the other and were then transferred into the Naga Hills District of Assam. Through such an approach, the northern Naga Hill areas became a part of Assam as its Naga Hills District and as a buffer. The Darrang and Lakhimpur areas, further to the north which also have Naga populations was also taken over by the British and transformed into a Division of Assam in 1914 and named as the North East Frontier Tract. It was later renamed as the North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA) in 1951. It was finally elevated into a Union Territory by India in January, 1972 and named as Arunachal Pradesh. Through such a systematic policy and approach, most of the Naga areas were taken over by the British colonialist and added into its colonial empire.
Naga Areas in Burma:
In similar fashion, the Somrah Tract inhabited by the Tangkhuls in Myanmar was quietly handed over by the British Administration of Manipur to its British counterpart in Burma in 1894. Thereafter, it was officially transferred to Burma in 1937 (Burma had become a Crown Colony of British India after the 1st Anglo-Burmese War of 1826 and was part of British India till the end of January 4, 1948). The reason for transferring the Somrah Tract to Burma was stated to be the great distance from Imphal, which made control and governance extremely difficult from Imphal. The Tangkhul’s ancestral land in Burma begins from beyond the eastern Hills east of the Chindwin River and runs into the west till it touches the eastern Hills overlooking the Chindwin River Valley of Myanmar. The Somrah Tract however begins from the northern boundary of Ukhrul District and from the east it starts from the foothills of Mt. Shirui east of Ukhrul District till it reaches close to Noklak District of Nagaland which is located besides the Naga Self-Administered Zone (NSAZ) of Myanmar. From Noklak, the NSAZ continues northwards till it crosses the Namdapha National Park to the north and ends in the northern Hills surrounding Vijaynagar Town in Arunachal Pradesh within the old Chaukan Pass area (Border Pillar No. 183) in Arunachal Pradesh.
When the British left India on the midnight of August 14th, 1947 and from Burma on January 4th, 1948 the Naga areas were largely uninformed and the public unconcerned. Despite the backwardness, lack of basic infra-structures, etc. the Government of Myanmar had in its own wisdom acknowledged the will and strength of the Naga people by segregating and upgrading the Naga areas in Myanmar into an Autonomous Region which also is inclusive of Somrah Tract and named it as Naga Self-Administered Zone on August 10, 2010. Myanmar which had unfortunately been mired by a great variety of internal issues, struggles and conflicts had however given due importance and the necessary time to address its Naga issue. Most of the Naga areas have now merged into the NSAZ except segregated areas, like the Tangkhul townships areas of Khamti, Homalin, etc. which rest close to the Chindwin River and its surrounding Hills as part of the Sagaing Division.
INDO-NSCN Talks:
By around 1991 the Congress Government led by Prime Minister Narashimha Rao took time to examine India’s economic position and the means to push the country’s economic growth forward through its “Look East Policy.” He found the unresolved Naga political issue to be a huge obstruction. To address and succeed, the new PM felt the Naga issue had to be addressed first and foremost. For the said purpose, he initiated the idea of having ‘Talks” with the Naga Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN). The NSCN leadership had also concluded through its own assessments that ‘talks” with the GoI was the best possible means for working out a solution with India. These factors finally led to the “Indo-NSCN Talks.” The first consultation meeting between the GoI and the NSCN took place at Paris on June 15, 1995. The PM himself represented India and Eno Isak Swu, Chairman and Eno Th. Muivah, the General Secretary represented the NSCN. Thus began the Naga talks with much hope.
Five Indian Prime Ministers, inclusive of Shri L.K. Advani, the Deputy Prime Minister had taken part in the talks. In addition, junior Ministers had also contributed their mind and energy by taking part in the Talks. The majority of the talks were however conducted by the officially appointed Interlocutors. Unfortunately, though the talks had crossed over 600 rounds of discussions, it could not provide an acceptable agreement or solution to the Indo-NSCN talks. This reality was proof that the Talks had not been conducted professionally, sincerely and well enough.
India’s Union Home Minister (HM) Shri Amit Shah who had been quietly engaged in guiding the trajectories of India in the GoI-NSCN talks, had also been keeping an eye on the growing discontentment in the Tuensang District of Nagaland. He surprised the general public when he announced on 5th Feb, 2026 the creation of the Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (FNTA). Thereafter, he made another comment to state that the Indo-NSCN Talks ought to be concluded at an early date. Thereafter, the HM took time to express his opinion that the NSCN’s demand for a i) Flag and Constitution, ii) Shared Sovereignty and iii) Integration of Nagas will not be possible. The HM also added, as a reminder, that the Naga Talks will be concluded soon.
The HM’s statements is as good as the GoI’s announcement. Further, it can also be agreed that 31 years of talks is more than sufficient to conclude Talks. However, as the HM’s statement relates to Talks between two entities, it would have been more prudent had it been announced by both the representatives of the GoI and the NSCN. As the announcement had not been made officially by both the concerned parties, it is not clear as to whether there has been a finalisation on the contentious issues of the flag and Constitution, Sharing Sovereign powers (as between a nation and its states) and on Naga Integration. To permit a recuring of conflict between the two opposing group would be an unwise approach. Having devoted more than 31 years to the Indo-NSCN talks, it would be more meaningful and for the good of the Nation to sit down together again to polish and finalise the Talks. It would certainly be unbecoming of a great nation to take a suo-moto decision.
As an interested citizen, some inputs are made here on the issues connected to Indo-NSCN Talks:
- Flag & Constitution: It is appreciated that Article 370 is a special provision concerning and related only to the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) in respect to its Flag and Constitution. However, if the same has been permitted for J&K State earlier, State “B” of India can also approach the GoI, the Union Cabinet and the Indian Parliament for its final approval. Some conclusion on the issue between both the parties would be perfect.
- Shared Sovereignty: The GoI’s view on the subject appears to be that the single sovereign Indian nation does not share its sovereignty with others. This may appear to be correct. However, there is a major element of shortcoming in this understanding. The States within the India Union shares power with the India Union as also with other sister States/Union Territories too. Further in respect to the case of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, it had signed an agreement with the GoI and the agreement is named and titled as the “Framework Agreement (FA) Between The Government of India (GoI) And The National Socialist Council of Nagaland(NSCN)” dated August 3, 2015 wherein the wording used is “…sharing the sovereign power as defined in the competencies…”(para 3, 3rd and 4th line). The words used by the GoI and the Honourable Home Minister is “shared sovereignty” which not one with “sharing the sovereign power.” Further, the sharing of sovereign powers is limited to a few subjects as listed in the competencies and not the totality of India’s sovereignty.
- Naga Integration: On the issue of “integration” of Naga citizens with their land and properties into a united single Naga State is of prime importance for the welfare of the state and of the country itself. The Naga citizens of India are scattered across Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and in Nagaland too. There are Nagas in Myanmar whose land and citizenship were surreptitiously transferred by the British. This issue is never the concern of the Nagas alone. India had succeeded and taken over what British Colonial power handed over to it. The British had scattered the Naga areas into all neighbouring Nations and States. It is now for India and Myanmar to rectify this division if the Nagas are to be their citizens. This can be achieved peacefully through talks between both the countries. Further, the nature, case and issues of integration rest with the original citizens/people i.e. the Naga people. Their interest and claims are and can never be sidelined for the interest of those who are not Nagas and States which to which the Naga areas were recently transferred. We have noticed and seen above how the Nagas were one and how they were segregated into different areas by the British for their own selfish colonial interest. Unless India takes up the case of the indigenous rights of the Naga people, why should they surrender their rights over what is their land? India should address these issues with Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh as also with Myanmar. It will be incorrect, improper, wrong and totally foolish to first hear and accept the statement or demands of those who are not Naga citizens and have no stakes in the integration process against genuine claimants of integration.
Conclusion:
If the GoI is rejecting the three issues as desired by the Nagas i.e. i) Flag and Constitution, ii) Sharing Sovereignty as defined in the Competencies, and iii) Naga Integration; what future will be left for the Nagas? The Naga’s struggle and conflicts are for these honours alone. India has already recognised the Nagas as having a “unique history and position.” There is nothing left to be said or added. It is not an issue for further negotiation. It is simply a case of bestowing due “rights” and “in consonance with the genius of the Naga people.” A careful study of the “Framework Agreement” only leads to success for both India and the Nagas. NSCN and India’s representative should sit together once again, not as adversaries. But rightfully and correctly as signatories of the FA.
Home Raikhan,
IRS (Retd.) & Historian