Something about the ‘Naga Situation’ defies simple explanation. It is not a straightforward case, but a complex and evolving situation shaped by colonial legacies, power struggles, and competing narratives of identity and sovereignty. It’s a grand power play unfolding behind the curtain—of historical positions, claims and counterclaims, strategic compromises, and the persistent clash between domination and self-determination.
Since the Naga declaration of independence in 1947 from the colonial British empire, their journey has been marked by resistance, crossfire, negotiation, and internal dilemmas. The question remains: is there a coherent path forward, or are the Nagas caught in an unresolved conundrum—one that reflects both the failure of imposed solutions and the fragility of internal unity?
The Emerging Puzzle
In 1929, the Nagas submitted the Naga Political Memorandum to the Simon Commission of the British Parliament. In 1947, they declared their independence from the colonial British empire. By 1951, a plebiscite was conducted to reaffirms this 1947 declaration, even as the Naga territory was occupied / absorbed by newly independent states of India and Myanmar (then Burma). Since then, the political conflict involving the Nagas, India and Myanmar has taken different shapes and complex dimensions.
Those who sensed the imminent need for social and economic development started to advocate—for cooperation and to work with India and Myanmar to develop and improve the social and economic status of the Nagas. This position argued that a truly independent Naga state could not survive without India and Myanmar, and without first establishing the infrastructure and systems necessary for stability and growth.
Others, who believed that Naga historical rights could not be compromised, insisted that the Nagas were independent before parts of their territory were annexed by the British Empire—and that no modern agreement could erase that legacy. They argued that development would naturally follow once a resolution was/is reached, and that the Nagas were fully capable of developing the Naga homeland.
Meanwhile, some also developed a hybrid strategy, attempting to benefit from both the positions. This dual approach has at times been interpreted as a strategic maneuver, an intellectual project, or even a tragic miscalculation or myth. A section of the Naga population, often seen as the ‘clever class,’ has attempted to intellectually navigate between competing realities—neither fully embracing Indian or Burmese statehood nor committing entirely to a unified Naga movement.
So, did any of the positioning approach work its magic? Some would argue yes, in limited ways. Yet the broader puzzle remains unresolved. The Naga narrative today exists at the intersection of history, myth, political aspiration, and realpolitik. It struggles to break free from external domination while simultaneously confronting internal disunity.
At the heart of the complexity lies ‘occupation’ or ‘annexation’—a central problem interlinked with unresolved sovereignty and competing aspirations among the Nagas: the push for development in the Naga region, personal advancement, and self-determination. While infrastructure, market economies, and political institutions have emerged, they often feel like fragile facades overlaying a deeper crisis of identity and sovereignty.
What remains is the enduring image of the Naga conundrum—caught between the past, present, and future; between survival and sovereignty. The promise of an independent Naga state looms large, yet remains elusive. It has become, in many ways, a kind of ‘waiting room’—a liminal space where the people risk becoming a disillusioned population, unless a ‘collective greatness’ is realized through unity on a common foundation. That is where the puzzle becomes truly compelling: in the unresolved tension between what is, what was, and what might yet be.
About the Author: Augustine R. is an independent analyst and researcher specializing in international relations and geopolitical affairs. With a background in international relations, trade, and development, his interests span global security and economic diplomacy. He closely examines the India-Naga-Myanmar political conflict, Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) strategic nexus and the evolving foreign policy dynamics within the U.S.-China-India relationship triangle. View all articles by the author.
Featured Image: Reworked by ICNA / Images: Missing Puzzle Pieces / Johnstocker; Naga Warrior / ImageDB34/Alamy Stock Photo
ICNA reserves all rights to the content submitted. The author’s views are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of icna.nl