One of the most important lessons from the study on the Indo-Naga conflict is that peace processes become weaker when they remain closed, elite-driven, and socially distant. Negotiations may involve armed actors and state representatives, but if the wider society does not see itself reflected in the process, the outcome will struggle to command legitimacy. This is why inclusive peacebuilding is not a symbolic preference; it is a practical necessity.
In the Indo-Naga context, the need for inclusion is especially urgent. The conflict has lasted for decades, and many generations have now grown up with its consequences. Yet formal negotiations have often remained concentrated among a limited set of political actors. This has created a gap between those who speak for peace and those who must live with its consequences. The study suggests that this gap can no longer be ignored if a durable settlement is to emerge.
The current anxieties in the hills of Manipur reinforce this point. Many Nagas view recent developments as evidence that political processes do not sufficiently reflect civilian experience. Whether the concern is about security, justice, or the uneven distribution of state attention, the broader lesson is that peace cannot be successfully managed from above alone. People who live through conflict need more than reassurance; they need participation, dignity, and a voice in shaping their future.
Women and youth are central to this discussion. They are often the first to bear the social consequences of conflict and the last to be included in formal decision-making. Yet they also carry important capacities for mediation, social repair, and political renewal. The study shows that many respondents value broader participation and view peace as something that must be built through trust, accountability, and social ownership. This finding challenges the idea that peace negotiations should remain the exclusive domain of a small political elite.
Inclusive peacebuilding also helps correct another persistent weakness: the tendency to confuse tactical compromise with genuine reconciliation. A settlement that excludes large sections of society may produce short-term stability, but it can leave deeper grievances untouched. Over time, those grievances return in new forms. By contrast, a peace process that includes civil society, women’s groups, youth organizations, churches, and tribal institutions is more likely to produce legitimacy because it reflects the actual social fabric of the community.
There is also a democratic argument here. Peace should not be something done to people; it should be something built with them. That principle is especially important in conflict-affected societies where institutions are fragile and public confidence has been worn down by years of uncertainty. Inclusion does not guarantee agreement, but it creates the conditions under which disagreement can be handled without renewed violence.
The study ultimately points toward a simple but demanding conclusion: the Indo-Naga peace process must move beyond narrow bargaining and toward shared political ownership. If the process is to become socially meaningful, it must listen more carefully to the people whose lives are shaped by its outcomes. That means accepting that peace is not only about concluding a deal. It is about building a political order in which ordinary people can recognize themselves, trust institutions, and live with dignity.
This op-ed draws on research supported by the Peace Research Grant Program of the International Peace Research Association Foundation.
Dr. Shonreiphy Longvah (Principal Investigator)
Dr. Somingam Mawon (Co-Investigator)
Associate Professors
Department of Political Science
St. Joseph University
Chumoukedima, Nagaland
Tuesday, July 21, 2026