The longstanding demand for a separate entity in Eastern Nagaland has finally reached a pivotal moment. The proposal for a Frontier Nagaland Territory (FNT) is moving toward resolution after years of intermittent dialogue, drawing fresh attention to regional aspirations and constitutional safeguards. Negotiations between the Eastern Nagaland People’s Organisation (ENPO) and the central government began in earnest in 2010. For more than a decade, these talks excluded the state government, a glaring omission that only changed in 2025 as discussions neared closure. State minister and government spokesperson K.G. Kenye informed media about the cabinet expressing serious reservations about placing the FNT under a new constitutional provision-potentially Article 371K-separate from Article 371A. He said the cabinet regarded this shift as a direct threat to Nagaland’s territorial integrity and its hard-won special status. In other words, it does point to Nagaland eventually moving into a direction where it could cease to exist as a dynamic entity at its birth. Until now, all parties-including the Centre, ENPO, and the Eastern Nagaland Legislators’ Union-had proceeded on the assumption that Article 371A would continue to govern the proposed frontier region. However, the sudden proposal of a new article has sparked concerns over the transparency and coherence of the negotiation process. Bifurcating Article 371A would carry profound consequences. Even under an autonomous council model, the FNT would remain part of Nagaland, making any separate constitutional identity incompatible with the state’s foundational guarantees. Maintaining Article 371A is essential to preserve the identity of the Naga tribes who symbolize Nagaland’s unity. Grievances in the frontier region stem from decades of perceived neglect. Despite significant development efforts, distrust runs deep, driving many to believe that only a distinct political structure can address long-standing disparities and deliver meaningful change. In all these, the Government of India occupies a central role in brokering this delicate transition. Confronted with competing pressures, the Centre seeks to reconcile regional demands with constitutional coherence, mindful of the broader implications for federal relations across India’s northeastern states. Within Nagaland, questions will be raised about the state government’s earlier absence from crucial talks and why it had not clarified its stand since 2010, instead of ENPO having to knock on the doors of the Centre?. Critics will scrutinize missed opportunities and policies that may have contributed to the current impasse, demanding accountability for steps not taken. Nagaland’s own statehood journey remains an extraordinary chapter in India’s constitutional history. Granted full statehood as the sixteenth member of the Union, it defied expectations based on its small population, rugged terrain, and limited infrastructure. The inclusion of Article 371A in the 16-Point Memorandum of Understanding between the Naga People’s Convention and the Government of India set a precedent. This special guarantee not only protected Naga customs and land rights but also inspired demands for similar arrangements in Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, and Sikkim. No other region in India has witnessed such a cluster of state-formation successes, despite numerous linguistic and cultural movements. This exceptional record underscores the path laid by the pioneers of Nagaland on the political and constitutional dynamics of India’s Northeast. The proposal for a new constitutional framework for the FNT carries more significance than administrative reorganization. As talks edge toward resolution, the outcome will redefine whether Nagaland’s constitutional experiment that was written with the blood, sweat and tears of thousands can sustain.
Tuesday, October 7, 2025