1. 1
Ben Morley
CONF 340-A01
Prof. Ekatrina Romanova
June 14, 2010
The Conflict between the Indian government and the Naga
The conflict in India’s North East region stems from many sources and involves many
groups. While the conflict in the North East involves many parties, the Naga conflict with India
is one of the most intense due to the age of the conflict and the continuation of the violence
despite many attempts at peace. The Naga-Indian conflict is the longest running insurgency in
modern Indian history and one of the longest in Asia, involving not just the Naga and the Indian
government, but China and various non Naga ethnic groups like the Meiteis. While colonialism
helped lay the foundation for this conflict, other factors not related to colonialism helped to feed
it, and what makes this conflict relevant today is the possibility for some lasting peace as both
sides have reached a stalemate after almost sixty years of fighting. The Naga-India conflict will
be analyzed with the Three Pillar Model and Basic Human Needs Theory integrated into the
Three Pillars Conflict model. While it will not be singled out in this analysis, Basic Human
Needs theory will be part of the analysis in terms of given grievances and needs of both sides.
The conflicting parties are the Indian government and the Naga, but there are secondary
parties as well. These parties are the other ethnic groups who fight with both the government
and the Naga, and the Chinese government which has a related conflict with India on the North
East border. Conflict was originally internal as it was just the Indian government fighting with

2. 2
the Naga, but took on inter-state aspects because of the influence of Chinese government on the
Naga rebels. The conflict also grew as other ethnic groups in the North East started fighting
against the Naga over land and power.
Both sides have issues with internal security, identity, and political goals. India wants to
keep North East India because of State cohesion, and wants the Naga to stop fighting with the
government and other ethnic groups in the North East. The Naga want the Indian government to
stop trampling on their freedoms and to withdraw the military because of abuses at the hands of
the military. The Naga also want either independence from India or autonomy in a bid to
preserve their distinct cultural and religious identity. The reasons for independence are multi
faceted, the identity based reason is that the Naga are not ethnically related to the Indians,
religious they are Protestants for the most part, and have a different history from India including
their independence from the British having been ignored when the Indian State took over the
region from the British in the 1940s. As a people, the Naga are different from the Indians and
feel their differences are not respected by the Hindu dominant nation. The political reason is that
the Naga declared independence from Britain as a separate entity from India, but the Indian
government refused to recognize Naga as independent and took over the region. The Naga also
claim that they were never a part of India historically.
The Indian government claims the Naga have freedom, and the government is trying to
keep the state together, as India is very diverse with many ethnic groups that fight with each
other. The Indian government considers the Naga Hills to be a part of India because of the
British Parliament’s Indian Independence Act, particularly the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act,
which allowed the Indian government to rule the former regions of the Naga Hills because they
were originally administered by the British. The Indian government claimed the region as part of

3. 3
the inheritance of the Indian nation from Britain (Chasie, & Hazarika, 2009). The Naga are just
another minority group that currently have been fighting for secession, and if the Naga are
allowed to do so, other groups like the Meiteis might also follow the example of the Naga. This
threatens India both as a cohesive State and also threatens India’s security as China might try to
take over parts of the North Eastern border and exert their influence more directly on India.
Pillar One
The parties of the conflict are the Naga, the Indian government, other ethnic groups, and
the Chinese. The Naga have used armed conflict to fight Indian government forces and other
ethnic groups, and have used negotiations to help gain some autonomy from the Indian
government in the form of Nagaland. They have also resorted to other measures such as the
blockade of Manipur, to fight with the government. The Indian government has used the
military since the beginning to deal with the Naga, but they have also tried to talk with the Naga
and gave them some degree of autonomy with the formation of Nagaland, but have also used the
law to fight the Naga with the use of Acts like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The other
ethnic groups, such as the Meiteis, fight with the Naga and the government for similar reasons as
the Naga, the abuses they suffered from the government and other rival ethnic groups like the
Naga, as these ethnic groups also want autonomy or independence from India. The Chinese
want “Southern Tibet”, as they call the North East, and fought a war with India in 1962 to
reclaim lands they believed were part of Tibet until the British carved up the region and
separated North East India from what the Chinese claim is Tibet. While they are a party, they
are secondary because they are not overtly involved in a direct confrontation with the Indian
government. The Chinese instead funneled arms and funds to the Naga insurgency and helped to

4. 4
train them, using the Naga and other ethnic groups in the North East as proxies to fight with
India.
India simply wants peace and security, both regionally and internationally. The Naga are
not the only ethnic group that wishes for autonomy and independence; other ethnic groups such
as the Kashmiris want either independence or autonomy, which would fragment parts of the
current state of India. As with any other state, India doesn’t want secession because such actions
would harm the basic needs of the state, such as internal security and resources. If India
fragments or loses territory it also loses buffer regions with potential enemies and loss of
regional power. India would also lose potential resources with States seceding, and it would lose
prestige in the international community.
China wants to reclaim “Southern Tibet” and extend its influence. China views the state
of Arunachal Pradesh as part of “Southern Tibet” and has contested this area with India since the
1950s (Lintner, 2010) and wants to claim this region as well as extend China’s influence in the
region as China becomes more powerful. Taking the North East would also give China greater
power to pressure India over the Dali Lama, whom the Chinese blame for recent riots in Tibet.
By helping the insurgents in the North East, China is able to attack India’s interests indirectly
and promote Chinese influence in the region. For the Chinese, this is a prestige and security
issue, prestige in the regards of having control over what they view is Tibet as a whole (not just
the region of Tibet that China took over in the 1950s), and a security issue in both the notion of
regional power being secure against their rival India and security in Tibet as they would be better
able to pressure India over the Dali Lama to prevent Tibetan unrest from becoming riots.

5. 5
The Naga want independence or autonomy and the government in India to address their
grievances. They view the government as distant and oppressive, citing the various laws passed
by New Delhi that discriminate against them and the long history of conflict with the Hindu
majority whom the Naga view as invaders. The main issues the Naga have stem from basic
human needs being violated, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act especially gives the military
free rein to do anything in the region and the Indian government has, for the most part, used
force and coercion to keep the region stable rather than addressing issues such as poverty and
lack of opportunities for the local population to integrate into Indian society. The Naga feel
isolated and marginalized by a distant government that only responds to their needs with
violence.
Pillar Two
The conflict was originally domestic for the Naga, they were fighting against the Indian
government. For the Indian government, the conflict was also originally domestic, but took on
international nature when the Chinese and the Pakistanis started to support the Naga insurgents
and other ethnic insurgent groups, turning the issue into an international one as Pakistan and
China were using local insurgents to attack India and making it also a national security issue.
The Chinese became a part of the conflict because of the border between India and China was a
source of a war in 1962 over the North East border. The Chinese use the Naga and other ethnic
groups in North East India to fight with the Indian government by proxy, arming the insurgents
and in the seventies the Chinese had provided training for insurgents.
Indian media has played up the threat of China though, the director of Chennai Institute
for China Studies, D.S. Rajan, publicized an article from a Chinese website that claimed India

6. 6
could be divided up by the various ethnic groups and that China would be able to reclaim
“Southern Tibet” while supporting these groups in their bid for independence. While this article
would enflame readers in India, it is not known who the writer was or whether he or she
represented the actual views of the Chinese government. This has only served to sow more
distrust of China as the media in India was trying to show China as a threat (Lintner, 2010).
What helps feed the insurgency is the abuses the Naga have suffered, either from the
government or from other ethnic groups including Naga groups who belong to different clans or
tribes. One major source of conflict from the government is the Army Special Powers Act,
which is the main source of structural violence in the region as it is worded and written so that
soldiers can detain indefinitely, shoot to kill, arrest, relocate families, and otherwise act with
impunity as these any abuses are shielded from legal actions of any kind short of the central
government getting involved. The language that provides such legal protection is the part that of
claims any actions taken by soldiers are simply “extraordinary measures” for extraordinary times
(Chasie, & Hazarika, 2009). This gives the army free reign to commit any crimes the individual
soldiers want under the guise of security. What makes this law even more repressive is that it
only needs the central government to claim an area as “disturbed” to go into effect, something
that a state has no power to stop (Chasie, & Hazarika, 2009). Effectively, the central government
can claim a state is disturbed and send in the army, who are free to commit any crimes, and the
state can’t rid itself of the disturbed title nor can the residents of the state bring criminal charges
against any officers for the crimes they committed while the state was “disturbed”.
Pillar Three

7. 7
Lasting peace will only come if the grievances of the Naga are addressed while helping
the Indian government to secure its’ interests of border security and national security. The
approaches both parties have used for the past 50 years have not worked because both sides have
not taken the time to work on the core issues rather than the stances of both sides. Both parties
realize that they are at a stalemate and that the violence of the past fifty years has only caused
both sides to suffer, the conflict has reached a level of hurting stalemate because both sides have
lost support for their conflict amongst their respective bases of support and have little to gain
from it.
China is merely taking advantage of the situation to attack India’s interests because of the
desire to have all of what they perceive to be Tibet, and over the harboring of the Dali Lama by
India for whom China blames recent riots and unrest in Tibet. For China this is a view of
sovereignty and power over a region they believed to be theirs, and India’s refusal to
acknowledge China’s sovereignty over “Southern Tibet” is not unreasonable. While the Naga
and the Indians have legitimate interests, China’s interests can’t be addressed without
compromising India’s territorial sovereignty at the MacMahon Line. The perception of power
could be addressed by India if it was possible by India without relinquishing the North East
portion to China, but the issue of the Dali Lama is one of a State exercising the right to host
officials from other States. As China invaded Tibet in the 1950s, decades after the MacMahon
Agreement was signed, it has no authority to demand the North East as part of “Southern Tibet”
or the Dali Lama’s expulsion from India. China will have to accept that it will not have the
physical control and added lands of the North East or the curbing of the Dali Lama’s influence in
Tibet. While China may want the prestige of fully possessing Tibet by claiming the North East,
this will not happen as it means threatening the regional stability of India. Yet China will not

8. 8
have the easing of tensions with Tibet simply by annexing the North East (assuming the Naga
declare independence), rather China should focus on the issues facing the Tibetans. That is the
only real way to ease ethnic tensions in Tibet and is not a problem of India.
The Naga need to recognize the Indian government is simply acting in its’ own perceived
interest. India has many different ethnic groups, some of whom are actively trying to gain either
independence or autonomy, and is trying to keep India together as a State rather than a
factionalized nation of rival ethnic groups each fighting for their own power and interests. The
Naga people need to curb the violence of their own groups, such as the Naga Students Federation
in Manipur, as these groups are often times antagonizing the Indian government into action. The
reason for the Manipuri local government’s actions was started by earlier conflict with groups
like the NSF and that the NSF’s blockade of the State’s interstate highways are only going to
give the Indian government more incentive to come in and attack the Naga. The Naga should
also spurn China’s aid as China is only using the Naga to get at India. Ultimately China
wouldn’t be any more sympathetic to the Naga than India, and China would most likely exert its
influence on the Naga as much as the Indians have for the past 50 years.
The desire for a separate nation is not possible for the Naga without compromising
India’s security, so the next best option the Naga should seek is greater autonomy. The Naga
must also work with the Indian government to secure the North East border, as this is the main
reason the military has been stationed in the North East, to provide internal security for the
Indian government and prevent foreign terrorists and drug smugglers from entering the country
and to prevent the local people from breaking the laws of the State. By helping the Indian
government in their desire for a peaceful and secure border, the Naga will also have removed any
legitimate reasons for the large military presence in the North East as well as provide stronger

9. 9
ties to the Indian community and the State. In doing this, the Naga play a more active role in the
nation and can more easily voice their concerns while promoting their interests in the
government. The Naga have legitimate complaints about human rights abuses by the Indian
government and feel that their culture and heritage are threatened by the Indian government with
such policies as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. However, the Naga should also consider
the security issue India has to face, and the feelings of their neighbors. Some of the most recent
violence in the North East was between the Naga and the Meities in Manipur. By working with
these local groups and respecting their local sovereignty, the Naga can make peace with their non
Naga neighbors. Promoting peace in the region can also help with increasing the goals for
greater autonomy and for the overturning of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, something
that most of India seems to favor.
The Indian government needs to stop abusing the Naga with military forces and political
indifference. The Naga will not accept any resolution that doesn’t address their suffering at the
hands of the military. Also, the government needs to respect the Naga autonomy and withdraw
the military in the region as they are one of the main sources of abuse. Giving the Naga greater
autonomy will help the moderates isolate the extreme elements and diminish the attraction of
secession while improving regional security. Also giving the Naga greater chances to integrate
on their own terms into Indian society will create greater cross cutting ties within Indian society.
The Indian government should also scrap completely the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, it
has proven to only anger the Naga and give the military too much power. The Act is not
effective in security, it has given more reason for the Naga and other ethnic groups to fight the
Indian government and has helped to radicalize otherwise moderate members of the Naga
community over the years.

10. 10
Scrapping the Act would improve security by improving human security of the Naga and
other ethnic groups living in the North East as well as other troubled regions in India such as
Jammu and Kashmir. This move is also backed by civil society, three studies, and the majority
of Indians, as they feel the Act is lawless and an affront to the very notions of democratic rule
and human rights. The only real opposition to the scrapping is the military, who wish for a more
“humane” form of the law, but this is potentially more dangerous for India to allow the military
too much power in the name of security. By scrapping the law, the many ethnic groups in India
will have more reasons to support the internal security of India, and they’ll feel more like
citizens rather than colonized subjects. This would also satisfy the military partially as they
wouldn’t need to constantly deploy forces to the border regions like the North East in order to
keep the region stable or to fight insurgents. The Act is a source of strife and promotes, at best, a
negative peace that often lives for a short time before the Naga and other ethnic groups start
fighting again. The Act doesn’t ensure the long term peace of India, but the long term survival
of the conflict the Indian has with the Naga. Keeping the law, even in a “humane form” will just
keep the conflict going because it would promote the same abuses of basic human rights and
needs that the Naga and other groups have complained about since the passing of the Act.
In conclusion, the conflict between the Naga and the Indian government is one that has
many aspects. The most pressing issues though can be negotiated on, assuming both sides are
willing to try and commit to the process. The first issue that needs resolution is the human
security issue posed by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which the majority of India wants
repealed. By getting rid of this law, the Indian government follows the democratic system it was
founded on and rids the nation of a law that legalizes abuse. This would mean to the Naga that
the Indian government is accountable and consistent with the principles of democracy. The

11. 11
Naga must also work towards peace by helping the Indian government to secure the North East
region as well as work with their non Naga neighbors to resolve any conflicts they have in a bid
to promote stability in the North East. If the Naga help to secure the border and make peace with
their neighbors, the Indian government with have less reasons to station the military or to support
the laws that cause human rights abuses in the region.
Work Cited
BBC News, . (1997, November 13). Nagaland: the world's longest running conflict ends.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/30332.stm (accessed 05/20/2010).
Chasie, C, & Hazarika, S. (2009). The state Strikes back: india and the naga insurgency.
Washington, D.C.: East -West Center. Availabe at:
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/ps052.pdf (accessed at 05/27/2010).
India: threat from nagaland. (1968, August 9). Time , Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902255,00.html (accessed 05/24/2010).
Isolation ward. (2010, May 22). The Economist, 395(8683), 46.
Lintner, B. (2010, February 25). Northeast india: boiling pot of international rivalry . The Epoch
Times, Retrieved from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30216/ (accessed
05/28/2010).
Longchar, T.K. (2010). Living the brunt of conflict: the tales of mao gate . Retrieved from
http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/nagas-tale-of-struggle-living
(accessed 05/30/2010).
Phillips, K. (2004). The India-naga conflict: a long-standing war with few prospects of imminent
solution. CHRI News, Retrieved from
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/nl/articles/india/summer2004.pdf (accessed
05/27/2010).
Sandole, Dennis J.D., A Comprehensive Mapping of Conflict and Conflict Resolution: A Three
Pillar Approach http://www.gmu.edu/academic/pcs/sandole.htm (accessed 05/28/2010).
Kapur, A. (2007). Integrating the seven sisters. Indian Defense Review, 20(2), Retrieved from
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2007/09/integrating-the-seven-sisters.html (accessed
06/10/2010).

12. 12
Minorities at Risk Project, Chronology for Nagas in India, 2004, available at:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/469f38981e.html [accessed 21 May 2010].
This is the exclusive property of Benjamin Andrew Morley. This piece shall not be
reproduced without expressed permission of the author.