DIMAPUR, SEP 20 (NPN): Ao Senso Telongjem Dimapur (ASTD) and Dimapur Ao Youth Organisation (DAYO) have taken serious note of remarks attributed to NSCN (I-M) leaders V.S. Atem and R.H. Raising against veteran Naga leader and former Nagaland chief minister and governor Dr. S.C. Jamir.
In a joint press release, the two organisations described as unfortunate and deeply unsettling the reported remarks portraying Jamir as being “out and out Indian”, stating that he was “not an advocate of the Naga people” and asserting that he had “no right” to speak on the Naga political issue.
The two bodies said the “sacred Naga political issue” should not be reduced to a contest over who has exclusive authority to speak on behalf of the Nagas. They asserted that “a Naga’s right to speak cannot be dictated by an organisation.”
They pointed out that Jamir is a Naga from a native village who, during his political career, was elected by the people of his constituency and served as Parliamentary Secretary at the Centre under prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, chief minister of Nagaland and subsequently as governor of several Indian states.
They said Jamir’s political record, like that of any public figure, could be debated, criticized or challenged, but disagreement with his political position could not deprive him of his right to express his views on matters concerning his people and State.
The two said that if the NSCN (I-M), or any other political organisation, disagreed with Jamir’s interpretation of Naga history or his approach towards a political settlement, such differences should be addressed through facts, historical evidence, reasoned arguments and transparent public discourse rather than questioning his Naga identity or declaring that he had no right to speak.
They questioned who had the authority to decide which Naga was sufficiently “Naga” to speak about the Naga people? They also questioned whether such authority rested with an individual, organisation, political group, leadership or negotiating body, or ultimately with the Naga people themselves?
The two said the Naga political journey had never been the property of one individual, political group, organisation or generation. It had involved generations of Nagas, including political leaders, civil society organisations, churches, intellectuals, elected representatives, national workers and ordinary citizens.
They said no organisation should place itself above the collective conscience of the Nagas by assuming the authority to decide who could or could not speak for the people.
The two bodies said differing political convictions among Nagas regarding the relationship between the Naga people and the Union of India were legitimate subjects of political debate.
However, they said reducing a person’s legitimacy as a Naga to whether his political position conformed to a particular ideology was neither constructive nor conducive to reconciliation.
They expressed concern over framing the debate in terms of being “Indian” or “Naga”, saying political disagreement should not become a test of a person’s Naga identity.
They said if Jamir’s historical account was considered incorrect, anyone had the democratic right to challenge it. Likewise, if his political approach was considered unacceptable or did not represent the negotiating position of the NSCN (I-M), that position could be stated clearly.
However, they drew a distinction between saying, “He does not represent our negotiating position,” and saying, “He has no right to speak.” According to ASTD and DAYO, the former represented a political position, while the latter sought to determine who was entitled to participate in public discourse.
The two said the Nagas had lived through decades of conflict, division, competing political positions and prolonged negotiations. At this stage, they said, public discourse needed to become more mature rather than more exclusionary.
The Ao bodies said the people of Nagaland did not need political gatekeepers deciding who was permitted to speak, but leaders and organisations capable of answering difficult questions without attempting to silence those who disagreed.
The two said the Naga political issue deserved facts instead of accusations, dialogue instead of denunciation, history instead of historical ownership, reason instead of rhetoric, and reconciliation instead of another generation of division.
They appealed to all Naga Political Groups and public leaders to exercise restraint, responsibility and dignity in their public statements. They said personal attacks, disrespect towards an elder, questions over identity and assertions of exclusive mandate would only deepen existing divisions rather than contribute to reconciliation.
They said Jamir’s views could be accepted, rejected or critically examined by the Naga public, adding that the decision belonged to the people and no organisation should presume to make it on their behalf.
ASTD and DAYO urged all concerned to maintain dignity in public discourse and remember that the ultimate stakeholders in the Naga political issue were the Naga people themselves.
Monday, September 21, 2026