DIMAPUR, NOV 5 (NPN): Naga National Council (NNC)-Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) has formally challenged the University of Oxford’s decision to repatriate 39 Naga ancestral human remains held at the Pitt Rivers Museum (PRM), demanding suspension of the physical transfer, full disclosure of records and an independent review of the decision.
In a formal representation submitted to Oxford Vice-Chancellor Professor Irene Tracey on November 4, the FGN raised procedural, historical, constitutional and institutional concerns over the university’s July 13, 2026 decision, particularly the authority and mandates of those involved in the repatriation process.
NNC-FGN clarified that its challenge was not a rejection of repatriation in principle, but questioned the authority under which the decision was made and whether the historical and institutional position of the NNC and FGN had been adequately considered.
The statement said the NNC had publicly communicated its institutional position on September 22, 2025, and followed it up through further correspondence, including a letter dated September 14, 2026. The FGN also wrote to the museum on October 15 and 26, seeking to keep the process in abeyance and suspend the physical transfer.
NNC-FGN maintained that research teams, academics and intermediaries could facilitate discussions but their participation did not automatically confer authority to initiate repatriation on behalf of the Naga national institution or determine the final disposition of ancestral remains. It said cultural bodies, customary institutions, NGOs and regional or community organisations had their respective roles, but these should not be equated with authority to represent the Naga national political and institutional position.
The representation also challenged the university’s reliance on Article 371A of the Constitution, particularly its statement that the care of the dead was protected by the provision and that tribal hohos held authority over the matter. NNC-FGN maintained that the authority of the Naga people over their ancestral remains was inherent and rooted in their historical existence, national sovereignty and institutional framework, and did not derive from Article 371A.
It also sought disclosure of the resolutions, written mandates and formal authorisations relied upon by the university, including the issuing tribal hohos or councils, the scope of their mandates and the specific authority granted to the facilitator.
The university was asked to clarify when and how the museum first engaged with the claimant and how the role evolved from facilitating discussions to submitting a formal repatriation claim.
Citing the formation of NNC on February 2, 1946, declaration of Naga Independence on August 14, 1947, Naga National Plebiscite of 1951, and establishment of the FGN and adoption of the Naga Yezhabo on March 22, 1956, the statement said the Indo-Naga political question remained unresolved.
It maintained that the 39 ancestral remains, taken from Naga territory during colonial intrusion and political conflict, could not be viewed solely as a cultural or heritage matter, but had to be understood within the wider historical and political context of the Naga people.
FGN also questioned how the university assessed the cultural and religious importance of repatriation against the academic, historical and research benefits of continued preservation. It sought disclosure of provenance investigations, previous examinations, research undertaken, assessments of research potential and independent expert advice considered by the university.
The statement said the remains were exceptionally scarce in Naga society and could offer opportunities for future Naga scholarship and responsible osteological, anthropological and related scientific research. It called for an evidence-based assessment of the long-term interests of the Naga people, including the possibility of continued preservation at the museum, before any irreversible transfer.
NNC-FGN further said healing and reconciliation, which had been presented as principles underlying the repatriation process, required recognition of unresolved grievances, respect for Naga national and institutional standing and meaningful engagement with the Naga people.
While recognising Oxford University’s role in historical research and academic inquiry, the FGN said this did not confer authority on the university to determine or redefine Naga national political authority, institutional legitimacy or representation.
The formal representation placed four demands before the university: immediate suspension of all physical transfer arrangements, including packing, dispatch, release, transportation and handover; disclosure of the complete documentary and communications record relating to the process; a comprehensive written response and direct engagement with the NNC-FGN; and an independent review by persons unconnected with the original recommendation and decision.
The proposed review should examine the claimant’s authority, differing representations, application of the university’s Human Remains Policy 2006 and the historical, constitutional and political premises underlying its decision.
FGN said the challenge also raised the wider issue of Naga ancestral human remains and cultural heritage held in museums and institutions outside Naga territories, calling for a consistent and properly mandated institutional approach.
It urged Oxford University to exercise restraint and address the representation through full disclosure, substantive engagement and independent review.
Friday, November 6, 2026