The recent exchange between S.C. Jamir and Professor Xavier P. Mao over Naga history has highlighted more than a disagreement about the past; it has raised questions about the future direction of the region. While history deserves scrutiny, the debate should not become a contest over ownership of the narrative.
The Naga political journey must be seen against the backdrop of twentieth‑century upheavals, including the dismantling of European empires, World War II, decolonisation and the rise of national self‑determination. In this context, the movement evolved from revolutionary assertion toward constitutional expression, seeking a political form that could preserve plural identities while negotiating a collective future.
Today that choice is reflected in Nagaland’s constitutional framework, Article 371A, and in later political understandings such as the 2015 Framework Agreement and the 2017 Agreed Position. These agreements embody the tension between inherited aspirations and an existing constitutional order, raising the question of whether political imagination can translate that tension into a timely and workable solution.
The speed of settlement has varied dramatically. The Sixteen‑Point Agreement of 1960 led to statehood by 1963, a rapid institutional transition. In contrast, the Framework Agreement of 2015 and the Agreed Position of 2017 have taken eleven years to reach a final settlement, with the appointment of Ajit Lal as interlocutor in September 2025 signalling renewed effort but not a fixed timetable.
Moving forward requires generosity, consent, consultation and participation. History should not be a zero‑sum game; recognising one Naga experience does not diminish another. The next chapter will be written not by deciding which history prevails, but by determining what elements from all histories can be carried forward toward inclusive unity.
