Political grease pole

For more than two decades, the Naga political discourse has remained trapped in ambiguity, sustained by a cycle of blame and deflection that has stalled the aspirations of an entire generation of Nagas. The gravity of the perpetrated ambiguity is most telling in Nagaland, the crucible of the Naga issue where successive governments have been raising the issue with the government of India since its creation in 1963. The emergence of the Concerned Naga Forum of Nagaland (CNFN)-a collective coming together of veteran leaders, retired bureaucrats, and public figures-marks a decisive break from this culture of silent ambiguity. The Forum insists it is not a political party but a voice of conscience, a pressure valve for a frustrated public. Its mission is unambiguous-move the Naga issue from endless negotiation to concrete implementation. The CNFN’s message is directed at three fronts. To the Government of India, it demands sincerity and delivery on commitments. To the Naga Political Groups (NPGs), it calls for transparency with the people they claim to represent. And to the State Government, it warns against passivity, urging it to stop being a spectator to the state’s decline. Led by veteran Naga leader and statesman, Dr. S.C. Jamir, the Forum poses a haunting question: if negotiations were declared “complete,” where is there still no solution ? The CNFN has identified three systemic failures. First, a transparency deficit: despite the signing of the Framework Agreement (2015) and the Agreed Position (2017), the competency clauses and roadmap remain opaque. Second, a sovereignty paradox: the absence of sovereignty and integration in the final documents suggests a pragmatic acceptance of the Indian constitutional framework, yet demands for a separate flag and constitution continue to be raised as deal-breakers. Third, the cost of interim existence: rampant illegal taxation, economic stagnation, and social discord have left Nagaland “on fire,” with ordinary citizens bearing the brunt of uncertainty. The Forum’s sharpest critique is reserved for the Nagaland State Government. With an opposition-less Assembly, CNFN argues, the state has both mandate and authority to press for implementation. Yet, instead of asserting this responsibility, it blamed the government of shifting the goalposts by calling for new interlocutors and fresh negotiations. CNFN has dismissed these as mere diversionary tactics that undermine the work already completed in 2019. It pointed out that the then interlocutor R.N. Ravi declared talks concluded and even mentioned it in his speech to the Nagaland assembly. If the Prime Minister is ready to deliver, CNFN insists, the onus of cooperation lies squarely on the shoulders of the 60 MLAs. Dr. Jamir’s historical parallel is telling. He recalled that the 16-Point Agreement of 1960 was a bridge, not a destination-one that secured Article 371(A) to safeguard Naga identity. Today’s FA and AP, he argued , represent the next bridge. The tragedy of current leadership is not a lack of options, but a lack of political will to cross over. As CNFN prepares to take its message to the grassroots, its intervention signals the end of managing conflict as a perpetual condition. The time has come to resolve it. The Forum’s call is clear: honor commitments, embrace transparency, and deliver a solution that allows Nagaland to move forward in truth, peace and dignity.