Kohima: The NSCN-K (Khango-Vusshe) is pushing back hard against oil and gas drilling in the Disputed Area Belt. The group forbids any exploration or resource transfer without the informed consent of indigenous landowners. They claim administrative deals cannot bypass land rights.
A tripartite agreement signed June 11, 2026, involves the governments of India, Assam, and Nagaland. It aims to develop resources across the border. The outfit warns that this move ignores long-standing territorial conflicts. "The unresolved Assam-Nagaland boundary dispute must not be treated as settled merely through an administrative or developmental arrangement," the group stated. The disputed zone stretches across 1,100 square kilometers along the 512-kilometer border.
Legal stakes are high. The NSCN-K points to Article 371A(1)(a)(IV) of the Indian Constitution. This law protects Naga land ownership and resource transfer. They argue the Supreme Court backs these safeguards. Recent reports of drilling near Hayiyan village in the Wokha district’s Bhandari subdivision triggered these alarms. The outfit demands total transparency regarding benefit-sharing, environmental safeguards, and site status before any equipment hits the ground.
They want the government to freeze all field operations immediately. Officials must consult local stakeholders to avoid future conflict. The group insists on a political solution over transactional business deals. They made their position clear on the potential fallout: "Any eventuality arising from the continued delay or failure to address the issue meaningfully shall carry its own consequences, for which the Government of Nagaland must bear full responsibility."
Updated at 12th September 2026 at 1:48pm
The group stressed that national energy security should not override indigenous rights. They acknowledged the government goal to cut dependence on imported hydrocarbons but argued that India's rise must rest on justice rather than the surrender of tribal birthrights. They noted that Naga aspirations for jobs and infrastructure have evolved, but that progress must coexist with, not cannibalize, ancestral land claims.
The outfit warned against treating the 11 June 2026 agreement as a blank check for industrial activity. They demanded the government move beyond simple procedural formalities, calling for concrete, transparent protocols on compensation, royalty structures, and environmental protections. They framed the current standoff as a clear choice for the state: either turn land resources into a shared source of prosperity or let them become the spark for fresh, avoidable conflict.
Updated at 12th September 2026 at 5:48pm
The group explicitly rejected the idea that resource extraction should create a de facto settlement for a territory that remains legally contested. They warned that moving forward without addressing these underlying ownership disputes threatens to turn the region into a hotbed of fresh, avoidable fighting.
Highlighting the historical weight of the movement, the outfit invoked the sacrifices of their martyrs, declaring that the people have endured enough. They framed their opposition as a demand for an early political solution, rejecting what they characterize as merely a transactional business arrangement.
Comments