Kohima, February 27: The Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN) has reaffirmed its long-standing political position on the Naga issue by reiterating the 14-Point Guideline issued in 1980 by A.Z. Phizo, the late President of the Naga National Council (NNC). The organisation stated that the guideline continues to serve as a reference point for understanding and articulating the Naga political position, particularly on questions relating to sovereignty and national identity.
 |
| Flag of Nagaland, adopted by the NSCN |
In a press release issued through its Ministry of Rali Wali, the FGN called upon Nagas to remain vigilant and responsible in matters concerning the defence and representation of the Naga cause. The statement urged citizens to be “very careful and wise in speaking, writing and doing in defence of our Nation,” while acknowledging that certain expressions contained in the original guideline may require adaptation to suit changing circumstances and contemporary realities.
According to the FGN, the 14-point document outlines principles that have historically guided sections of the Naga nationalist movement. Central to the guideline is the assertion that the Naga people constitute a distinct nation and that Nagaland possesses a separate political identity. The document maintains that the Nagas had their own historical and political existence prior to the advent of British rule and were never formally incorporated through any treaty arrangement that would diminish their claimed status.
The guideline also revisits historical developments surrounding the period leading up to India's independence. Referring to discussions on autonomy in 1947, the document states that proposals offered at the time were rejected by Naga leaders who maintained that the Nagas already possessed sovereign status before the emergence of independent India and the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950.
Reiterating its interpretation of the Naga political issue, the FGN maintained that the matter should not be viewed as an internal political or administrative question within India. Instead, it described the issue as one concerning sovereignty and the political rights of the Naga people. The organisation argued that the historical and political dimensions of the issue extend beyond conventional debates over autonomy or administrative arrangements.
The statement also took exception to terminology historically used by Indian authorities in reference to Naga nationalist groups. According to the FGN, terms such as “underground” and “rebels” do not accurately reflect the political position held by those who identify with the Naga nationalist movement and its objectives.
As part of its release, the FGN referred to a letter written by A.Z. Phizo from London on May 10, 1986, to then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In the correspondence, Phizo reportedly described the situation as one involving questions of sovereignty and political rights rather than a conventional domestic political dispute.
The latest statement comes at a time when discussions surrounding the Naga political issue continue to generate debate among different stakeholders. Various Naga political groups, civil society organisations, tribal bodies, and governments have, over the years, expressed differing views on the history, nature, and future direction of the Naga political process.
ALSO READ: Nagaland Government Teachers’ Association Intensifies Protest, Fresh Demonstration on March
Observers note that the reiteration of Phizo’s guideline reflects the continued relevance of historical narratives within sections of the Naga nationalist movement. It also underscores the enduring significance of issues relating to identity, history, and political aspirations in ongoing discussions about the Naga question.
While perspectives on the issue vary among stakeholders, the FGN’s latest statement reaffirms its adherence to positions articulated by the NNC leadership during earlier phases of the movement. The organisation stated that understanding historical principles remains important as Nagas continue to engage with questions concerning their political future.
The release serves as a reminder of the diverse viewpoints that continue to shape discourse around the Naga political issue and highlights the ongoing importance of dialogue, historical understanding, and engagement among all concerned stakeholders.
