Why NSCN (IM) and ZUF must preserve the Naga future without surrendering their distinct political aspirations Reconciliation without erasure
|
Majhot Gonmei
Disclaimer : This article reflects the personal analysis of the author and is written in the interest of peace, mutual understanding, and dialogue among Naga communities. It does not endorse, represent, or speak for any armed group, political organisation, or Government body._
There are moments in the history of a people when the gravest danger does not arise from an external enemy, territorial rival, or hostile State, but from the slow fragmentation of trust within the family itself. The present hostility between NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J represents one such moment for the Naga people, particularly for the Zeliangrong community whose ancestral homeland now stands psychologically exhausted between memory, uncertainty, ethnic conflict, and growing internal anxiety. At a time when Manipur remains trapped in one of the most devastating ethnic crises in post-independence India, the bitterness between two Naga organisations carrying different political visions has generated a deeper and more troubling fear among ordinary civilians: that the future may ultimately be threatened not by instability outside the Naga world, but by irreversible rupture within it.
The conflict that erupted in Manipur in May 2023 did not emerge overnight. It was the cumulative explosion of decades of unresolved grievances surrounding land, demographic anxieties, competing historical narratives, Constitu- tional protections, political distrust, and the growing fear among communities that survival itself may depend upon territorial conso- lidation and militarised assertion. The violence left hundreds dead, displaced tens of thousands, and transformed entire regions into landscapes of fear, segregation, and suspicion. Yet while the original Meitei–Kuki confrontation har- dened into deeply polarised ethnic frontiers, another quieter but profoundly consequential tension began intensifying within the Naga-inhabited areas themselves. The growing hostility between NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J gradually evolved from organisational disagreement into a larger symbolic struggle concerning identity, legitimacy, political space, and historical inheritance within the Zeliangrong homeland.
To understand the emotional depth of this issue, one must first understand the historical place of the Zeliangrong people within the larger Naga political consciousness. Long before contemporary ceasefires, framework agreements, and competing geopolitical strategies emerged, one of the earliest organised expressions of Naga political awakening arose through the leadership of Haipou Jadonang and later Rani Gaidinliu. Jadonang was not merely a local spiritual reformer resisting colonial intrusion. He represented an early vision of indigenous dignity, civilisational continuity, and collective self-respect emerging from the hills of the present-day Tamenglong region. His movement carried spiritual, cultural, and political dimensions simultaneously. His execution by the British colonial administration in 1931 transformed him into a martyr whose memory would later inspire generations across the Naga world. After his death, Rani Gaidinliu carried forward the movement with extraordinary resilience and sacrifice, eventually becoming one of the most recognised anti-colonial figures of North East India. The Zeliangrong people therefore do not view themselves as peripheral partici- pants within Naga history; they see themselves as one of the foundational pillars upon which the earliest Naga awakening was built.
This historical memory is essential to understanding why many Zeliangrong people react with profound emotional sensitivity whenever they perceive attempts, real or perceived, to weaken, dilute, administratively replace, or symbo- lically marginalise the nomenclature “Zeliangrong.” To outsiders, such concerns may appear merely semantic or political. But within the emotional world of the Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei, and Inpui peoples, the word “Zeliangrong” carries the accumulated weight of ancestral migration, sacrifice, anti-colonial struggle, kinship, spiritual identity, and historical continuity. It is not merely a political label. It is an inheritance. For many, any weakening of that emotional legitimacy raises a deeper fear that future generations may inherit confusion instead of continuity.
At the same time, intellectual honesty requires recognition of the historical and political role played by NSCN (IM) within the broader Naga National movement. For decades, NSCN (IM) has remained one of the most influential organisations articulating the Naga political question through its vision of sovereignty, integration, and recognition of the unique historical and political identity of the Naga people. Its prolonged negotiations with the Government of India, including the 1997 ceasefire and the 2015 Framework Agreement, emerged from deeply rooted ideological convictions concerning the unresolved Naga issue. To dismiss that history entirely would be historically shallow and politically dishonest. Likewise, the emergence of Zeliangrong United Front must also be understood within its own historical and political context. The organisation increasingly derives its legitimacy from the aspiration for territorial integration and Constitutional recognition of the fragmented Zeliangrong homeland within the Union of India. In essence, both organisations draw legitimacy from different interpretations of Naga history and different visions of political destiny.
Yet herein lies the most dangerous misunderstanding of the present moment: differing political aspirations are increasingly being treated as though they necessarily require mutual destruction.
History repeatedly demonstrates that movements often become most vulnerable not when confronted by external adversaries, but when ideological competition within the movement itself evolves into campaigns of delegitimisation and fratricidal hostility. Once rival political visions cease viewing each other as competing ideas and begin viewing each other as existential threats requiring elimination, the social fabric of the people itself begins to decay. This is precisely the fear now silently growing across many sections of the Zeliangrong homeland. In villages, Churches, student bodies, intellectual circles, and civil society organisations, there exists a growing anxiety that if the hostility between NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J continues escalating unchecked, the eventual casualty may not merely be organisational influence or territorial control, but the long-term psychological unity of the Zeliangrong people themselves.
The tragedy is made even heavier by timing. Manipur today already stands dangerously fractured by ethnic mistrust, territorial insecurity, demographic anxiety, and militarised social consciousness. Entire communities increasingly perceive survival through ethnic consolidation rather than coexistence. In such an atmosphere, internal confrontation among Nagas weakens not only political credibility, but also collective security, social trust, and moral legitimacy. Every internal clash deepens civilian fear, normalises militarised responses among younger generations, and strengthens the dangerous belief that political disagreement among brothers can ultimately be settled through intimidation rather than wisdom. Such a trajectory may produce conse- quences far beyond the calculations of present leaderships.
This article is therefore not written to accuse one side while glorifying the other. Such simplistic narratives only deepen hostility and reproduce the same destructive mentality that has already consumed too much of North East India’s political history. Nor is this an argument that either NSCN (IM) or ZUF-J must abandon its aspirations, dissolve its ideology, or surrender its political convictions. Such expectations are unrealistic and intellectually immature. The real question before the Naga people today is whether political coexistence remains possible without ideological erasure. Can two movements carrying different aspirations still recognise each other’s emotional legitimacy within the same historical family ? Can reconciliation emerge without demanding humiliation ? Can strategic wisdom prevail over factional absolutism ?
The answer must be yes, because the alternative is too catastrophic to contemplate.
If autonomous Zeliangrong political articulation continues to be perceived as incompatible with the broader Naga framework, resentment among future generations may deepen irreversibly. Likewise, if the broader Naga political movement increasingly comes to be viewed within sections of Zeliangrong society only through the lens of hostility and exclusion, then the possibility of long-term Naga cohesion may gradually collapse into permanent frag- mentation. Neither path secures the future. Both paths merely produce deeper wounds.
The wiser path forward therefore requires a new political maturity rooted not in domination, but in coexistence. NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J must recognise that preserving the people is greater than defeating a rival organisation. Mecha- nisms of restraint, mutual respect, political dialogue, and non-aggression remain possible without compelling either side to surrender its ideological objectives. Reconciliation does not require uniformity of vision. It requires acceptance that one people can carry multiple political aspirations while still preserving civilisational kinship. The history of the Naga people is already burdened by decades of bloodshed, fragmentation, displacement, and unhealed memory. Another prolonged internal rupture within the Zeliangrong homeland may create psychological scars that no future agreement can easily repair.
History ultimately remembers not only those who fought courageously, but those who possessed the wisdom to prevent brothers from destroying brothers. The future of the Zeliangrong people cannot be secured through internal exhaustion. Nor can the wider Naga future emerge from the permanent alienation of one of its most historically foundational communities. The names of Haipou Jadonang and Rani Gaidinliu continue to command reverence not merely because they resisted oppression, but because their struggles represented the preservation of dignity, continuity, and collective existence itself. To honour that legacy today requires more than slogans, weapons, or factional triumphs. It requires the courage to preserve brotherhood even amidst ideological disagreement.
For once a people lose faith in the possibility of a shared future, even the strongest movements eventually collapse beneath the weight of their own divisions, and history remem- bers not merely who fought, but who failed to preserve the people from themselves.
Majhot Gonmei is a Social Research Scholar (Ind) based in Khoupum, Manipur. He writes on Zeliangrong history, Naga politics, and conflict resolution in North East India, with a focus on indigenous identity and peacebuilding. Author of several e-books. Email: [email protected].
Disclaimer : This article reflects the personal analysis of the author and is written in the interest of peace, mutual understanding, and dialogue among Naga communities. It does not endorse, represent, or speak for any armed group, political organisation, or Government body._
There are moments in the history of a people when the gravest danger does not arise from an external enemy, territorial rival, or hostile State, but from the slow fragmentation of trust within the family itself. The present hostility between NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J represents one such moment for the Naga people, particularly for the Zeliangrong community whose ancestral homeland now stands psychologically exhausted between memory, uncertainty, ethnic conflict, and growing internal anxiety. At a time when Manipur remains trapped in one of the most devastating ethnic crises in post-independence India, the bitterness between two Naga organisations carrying different political visions has generated a deeper and more troubling fear among ordinary civilians: that the future may ultimately be threatened not by instability outside the Naga world, but by irreversible rupture within it.
The conflict that erupted in Manipur in May 2023 did not emerge overnight. It was the cumulative explosion of decades of unresolved grievances surrounding land, demographic anxieties, competing historical narratives, Constitu- tional protections, political distrust, and the growing fear among communities that survival itself may depend upon territorial conso- lidation and militarised assertion. The violence left hundreds dead, displaced tens of thousands, and transformed entire regions into landscapes of fear, segregation, and suspicion. Yet while the original Meitei–Kuki confrontation har- dened into deeply polarised ethnic frontiers, another quieter but profoundly consequential tension began intensifying within the Naga-inhabited areas themselves. The growing hostility between NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J gradually evolved from organisational disagreement into a larger symbolic struggle concerning identity, legitimacy, political space, and historical inheritance within the Zeliangrong homeland.
To understand the emotional depth of this issue, one must first understand the historical place of the Zeliangrong people within the larger Naga political consciousness. Long before contemporary ceasefires, framework agreements, and competing geopolitical strategies emerged, one of the earliest organised expressions of Naga political awakening arose through the leadership of Haipou Jadonang and later Rani Gaidinliu. Jadonang was not merely a local spiritual reformer resisting colonial intrusion. He represented an early vision of indigenous dignity, civilisational continuity, and collective self-respect emerging from the hills of the present-day Tamenglong region. His movement carried spiritual, cultural, and political dimensions simultaneously. His execution by the British colonial administration in 1931 transformed him into a martyr whose memory would later inspire generations across the Naga world. After his death, Rani Gaidinliu carried forward the movement with extraordinary resilience and sacrifice, eventually becoming one of the most recognised anti-colonial figures of North East India. The Zeliangrong people therefore do not view themselves as peripheral partici- pants within Naga history; they see themselves as one of the foundational pillars upon which the earliest Naga awakening was built.
This historical memory is essential to understanding why many Zeliangrong people react with profound emotional sensitivity whenever they perceive attempts, real or perceived, to weaken, dilute, administratively replace, or symbo- lically marginalise the nomenclature “Zeliangrong.” To outsiders, such concerns may appear merely semantic or political. But within the emotional world of the Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei, and Inpui peoples, the word “Zeliangrong” carries the accumulated weight of ancestral migration, sacrifice, anti-colonial struggle, kinship, spiritual identity, and historical continuity. It is not merely a political label. It is an inheritance. For many, any weakening of that emotional legitimacy raises a deeper fear that future generations may inherit confusion instead of continuity.
At the same time, intellectual honesty requires recognition of the historical and political role played by NSCN (IM) within the broader Naga National movement. For decades, NSCN (IM) has remained one of the most influential organisations articulating the Naga political question through its vision of sovereignty, integration, and recognition of the unique historical and political identity of the Naga people. Its prolonged negotiations with the Government of India, including the 1997 ceasefire and the 2015 Framework Agreement, emerged from deeply rooted ideological convictions concerning the unresolved Naga issue. To dismiss that history entirely would be historically shallow and politically dishonest. Likewise, the emergence of Zeliangrong United Front must also be understood within its own historical and political context. The organisation increasingly derives its legitimacy from the aspiration for territorial integration and Constitutional recognition of the fragmented Zeliangrong homeland within the Union of India. In essence, both organisations draw legitimacy from different interpretations of Naga history and different visions of political destiny.
Yet herein lies the most dangerous misunderstanding of the present moment: differing political aspirations are increasingly being treated as though they necessarily require mutual destruction.
History repeatedly demonstrates that movements often become most vulnerable not when confronted by external adversaries, but when ideological competition within the movement itself evolves into campaigns of delegitimisation and fratricidal hostility. Once rival political visions cease viewing each other as competing ideas and begin viewing each other as existential threats requiring elimination, the social fabric of the people itself begins to decay. This is precisely the fear now silently growing across many sections of the Zeliangrong homeland. In villages, Churches, student bodies, intellectual circles, and civil society organisations, there exists a growing anxiety that if the hostility between NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J continues escalating unchecked, the eventual casualty may not merely be organisational influence or territorial control, but the long-term psychological unity of the Zeliangrong people themselves.
The tragedy is made even heavier by timing. Manipur today already stands dangerously fractured by ethnic mistrust, territorial insecurity, demographic anxiety, and militarised social consciousness. Entire communities increasingly perceive survival through ethnic consolidation rather than coexistence. In such an atmosphere, internal confrontation among Nagas weakens not only political credibility, but also collective security, social trust, and moral legitimacy. Every internal clash deepens civilian fear, normalises militarised responses among younger generations, and strengthens the dangerous belief that political disagreement among brothers can ultimately be settled through intimidation rather than wisdom. Such a trajectory may produce conse- quences far beyond the calculations of present leaderships.
This article is therefore not written to accuse one side while glorifying the other. Such simplistic narratives only deepen hostility and reproduce the same destructive mentality that has already consumed too much of North East India’s political history. Nor is this an argument that either NSCN (IM) or ZUF-J must abandon its aspirations, dissolve its ideology, or surrender its political convictions. Such expectations are unrealistic and intellectually immature. The real question before the Naga people today is whether political coexistence remains possible without ideological erasure. Can two movements carrying different aspirations still recognise each other’s emotional legitimacy within the same historical family ? Can reconciliation emerge without demanding humiliation ? Can strategic wisdom prevail over factional absolutism ?
The answer must be yes, because the alternative is too catastrophic to contemplate.
If autonomous Zeliangrong political articulation continues to be perceived as incompatible with the broader Naga framework, resentment among future generations may deepen irreversibly. Likewise, if the broader Naga political movement increasingly comes to be viewed within sections of Zeliangrong society only through the lens of hostility and exclusion, then the possibility of long-term Naga cohesion may gradually collapse into permanent frag- mentation. Neither path secures the future. Both paths merely produce deeper wounds.
The wiser path forward therefore requires a new political maturity rooted not in domination, but in coexistence. NSCN (IM) and ZUF-J must recognise that preserving the people is greater than defeating a rival organisation. Mecha- nisms of restraint, mutual respect, political dialogue, and non-aggression remain possible without compelling either side to surrender its ideological objectives. Reconciliation does not require uniformity of vision. It requires acceptance that one people can carry multiple political aspirations while still preserving civilisational kinship. The history of the Naga people is already burdened by decades of bloodshed, fragmentation, displacement, and unhealed memory. Another prolonged internal rupture within the Zeliangrong homeland may create psychological scars that no future agreement can easily repair.
History ultimately remembers not only those who fought courageously, but those who possessed the wisdom to prevent brothers from destroying brothers. The future of the Zeliangrong people cannot be secured through internal exhaustion. Nor can the wider Naga future emerge from the permanent alienation of one of its most historically foundational communities. The names of Haipou Jadonang and Rani Gaidinliu continue to command reverence not merely because they resisted oppression, but because their struggles represented the preservation of dignity, continuity, and collective existence itself. To honour that legacy today requires more than slogans, weapons, or factional triumphs. It requires the courage to preserve brotherhood even amidst ideological disagreement.
For once a people lose faith in the possibility of a shared future, even the strongest movements eventually collapse beneath the weight of their own divisions, and history remem- bers not merely who fought, but who failed to preserve the people from themselves.
Majhot Gonmei is a Social Research Scholar (Ind) based in Khoupum, Manipur. He writes on Zeliangrong history, Naga politics, and conflict resolution in North East India, with a focus on indigenous identity and peacebuilding. Author of several e-books. Email: [email protected].