Kohima: Southern Naga organisations are fighting back against claims that their communities sat out the early years of the Naga political movement. A new stance paper identifies five specific signatories from Manipur to the May 16, 1951 Naga plebiscite. This evidence aims to kill the narrative that the region was disconnected from foundational history. The signatories include the late Ng Mono Monsang from Chandel district and Ashihe Khekho Mao from Senapati district. Three members of the Rongmei tribe also signed: the late Ramdikamang Pamei of Dailong, late Mathiuhuam Riamei of Kakhulong, and late Meirizinang Panmei of Ajuram.
Presidents of the Naga People’s Organisation, the Chandel Naga People’s Organisation, and the Japhou Tribes Council signed the paper alongside former United Naga Council secretary Ashinpou Gangmei and researcher Dr Benjamin Gangmei. They pulled these records from the Rongmei Encyclopedia and communications with Rev Dr Wati Aier, the Ukhrul Times, Lungsu Panmei, and Gianingam Gangmei. The paper is blunt about the intent behind this history. "This cold data formally confutes the hot narrative of non-participation from Manipur," the document states.
The authors warn that painting Southern Nagas as outsiders deepens internal rifts. It threatens the territorial framework of self-determination. The paper argues that true history relies on collective identity rather than attendance records at specific events. Leaders suggest using descriptive representation instead, noting that even those who did not formally participate often complied with the political outcomes of the era. The paper compares this to the Indian nationalist movement, where many regions accepted independence despite a lack of direct, formal involvement.
The report outlines three distinct phases: unity from 1918 to 1951, decades of conflict through 1997, and the current era of factionalism and cross-border unity. It highlights the friction between the NSCN (IM) and the NNPGs, noting the public is torn between historical trauma and pragmatic governance. The paper concludes that the Naga movement must move past factional paradoxes. It calls for leaders to prioritize cohesion over individual agendas. "The hallmark of the discursive dominance is putting the people above selves," the paper says, urging the public to look at the peace process through a wider lens.
Comments