By late 1975, in the quiet hill station of Shillong, many high ranking officials from the Indian government gathered to sign a document that was meant to end one of the longest-running insurgencies in Asia. This Accord, however, simply meant as a ceasefire agreement between the Government of India and the Naga National Council (NNC), and is indeed celebrated by some as the first step toward lasting peace in the turbulent Naga Hills on the border of India and Myanmar. But for many others, particularly the more radical factions within the Naga leadership, it was a treacherous deal that betrayed the very core of Naga aspirations—sovereignty.
Asena Imchen and Luke Rimmo Lego explain.
Naga tribesmen, circa 1905.
The agreement reached in 1975 became a flashpoint for division and militarization within the Naga National Movement. Key leaders rejected the Accord outright, arguing that accepting the Indian Constitution and laying down arms amounted to surrendering Naga independence- anyone who did sign this meant he or she was a traitor. This fallout from the Accord was almost immediate, culminating in the rise of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), a faction that would go on to spearhead a renewed armed struggle for Naga self-determination. So how did this Accord deepen the fractures within Naga society, leading to decades of conflict and reshaping Naga demands in ways that continue to influence the region’s political landscape today?
I. The Road to Shillong: Pre-Accord Context and Negotiations
The origins of the Naga National Movement can be traced back to the formation of the Naga National Council (NNC) in the early 1940s, which then emerged as a significant political body advocating for the distinct identity and rights of the Naga people. By 1947, under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the NNC had already declared Naga independence from British India, just a day before India’s own independence. This bold proclamation thus inadvertently set the stage for decades of insurgency that eventually led to a fallout in the entire Wesean (Western South-East Asian region). This conflict escalated through the 1950s and 1960s, with the Indian government deploying military forces to suppress the Naga rebellion, leading to widespread violence and human rights abuses in the Naga Hills. Initial attempts at ceasefires and negotiations, such as the 1964 ceasefire, offered brief respites but eventually failed to produce a lasting solution. Additionally, the Indian military's targeting and abuse of “Naga children” fueled deep resentment and mistrust towards India among ordinary Nagas, leaving the conflict unresolved.
By the mid-1970s, the Indian government, facing growing unrest in the Wesean region and mounting international pressure to stabilize the conflict, saw an opportunity to push for peace with the Nagas. After several decades of conflict, the Indian state was motivated by the desire to restore stability and integrate Nagaland more firmly within the Indian Union. The NNC, weakened by internal divisions and exhausted from years of war, also saw the potential for peace, particularly among its moderate factions. Key Naga leaders such as Phizo's deputy, Kevi Yalie, were involved in the push for dialogue, believing that a negotiated settlement was the best path forward to avoid further bloodshed. Shillong, the capital of the erstwhile Northeastern Presidency under British India, was chosen as the site for these negotiations due to its strategic and symbolic importance—it was a neutral location yet close enough to the Naga heartland to facilitate talks. The Indian government had to frame the upcoming accord as a significant concession, a step toward bringing Nagaland into the constitutional fold while preserving some degree of Naga autonomy.
The Accord, signed in November 1975, outlined a series of conditions aimed at ending hostilities. The most critical clause was the requirement for the Naga rebel groups to accept the Indian Constitution, effectively renouncing their claim to sovereignty. Additionally, the Accord mandated the surrender of arms by insurgent groups, symbolizing the cessation of the armed struggle. In return the Indian state was to give the Nagas the state of Nagaland- which however further fractured Naga identity, as the Nagas were now separated into 4 administrative divisions within India and into 2 countries (Myanmar and India). From the Indian government’s perspective, this was a major victory—a diplomatic success that would finally integrate Nagas and end years of insurgency. There was no doubt that for India, it was a decisive step toward peace, for it would bring the region into the national mainstream and resolve the long-standing demand for sovereignty. However, as subsequent developments would show, this optimism was short-lived as many factions within the Naga leadership, especially the radical elements, perceived the Accord as a betrayal, setting the stage for further conflict- beyond just the Nagas.
II. Reception of the Shillong Accord: Compromise or Betrayal? Initial Reception Among Naga Leaders
The Accord was met with mixed reactions among Naga leaders, sharply dividing opinions. For some, particularly the moderates within the NNC, the Accord represented a necessary compromise after decades of armed struggle, loss of life, and unrelenting hardship. These leaders, many in their 50s, exhausted by the unending conflict and the toll it had taken on their people, saw the acceptance of the Indian Constitution as a step toward achieving a measure of peace and regional autonomy. While full sovereignty remained their ultimate goal, they believed that concessions at this juncture could lead to greater opportunities for dialogue with India and possibly more autonomy in the future. They thus viewed the Accord as a strategic pause, a chance to regroup and rebuild the Naga political movement under less hostile circumstances.
However, for the radical factions, particularly the younger leaders of the NNC, this was nothing short of a betrayal. Personalities like Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chishi Swu, who would go on to play crucial roles in the insurgency, saw the Accord as a complete sellout to the Indian state. To them, the agreement represented the Naga leadership’s capitulation to Indian hegemony, undermining the very foundation of their struggle for independence. The acceptance of the Indian Constitution was thus viewed as a fatal compromise that negated the Naga people’s right to self-determination. Most of these youngsters refused to recognize any agreement that did not affirm full sovereignty, and they quickly rejected the Accord, marking a decisive break with the NNC’s leadership.
This rejection culminated in the formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980. With Muivah and Swu at the helm, the NSCN became the torchbearer of a more radicalized insurgency, driven by a pan-Naga agenda that sought to unite all Nagas under one sovereign entity, including those residing outside the boundaries of Nagaland. The NSCN’s establishment signaled the beginning of a new chapter in the Naga insurgency—one characterized by a more militant and uncompromising stance. The faction's formation also laid bare the deep divisions within the Naga nationalist movement, with the NSCN openly condemning the moderate leaders of the NNC for having surrendered the cause of independence.
The Shillong Accord’s fallout eventually did lead to significant political and military consequences for both the Naga movement and the Indian government. The NSCN's emergence reinvigorated the insurgency, with the group launching a series of militant operations to resist what they viewed as the ongoing Indian occupation. The intensity of their actions, combined with their more expansive vision of Naga sovereignty, escalated the conflict beyond the boundaries of Nagaland, drawing in other Naga-dominated areas in the Northeast and Myanmar.
III. Long-Term Impact of the Shillong Accord on Naga Nationalism Reshaping of Naga Political Demands
This accord had fundamentally reshaped Naga political aspirations, polarizing the movement between moderates who sought greater autonomy within India and radicals, like the NSCN, who pursued full sovereignty and the unification of all Naga-inhabited areas across India and Myanmar. While the NNC, having signed the Accord, leaned toward negotiating for regional autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework, it lost credibility among the younger generation of Nagas who saw the agreement as a betrayal. The NSCN, in contrast, gained prominence by championing a vision of Nagalim, a sovereign Naga homeland, appealing to the more radicalized segments of Naga society.
The Accord also later came to intensify internal divisions within Naga society, not just between the NNC and the NSCN but also within the NSCN itself, which eventually splintered into factions such as NSCN-IM and NSCN-K. This factionalism fractured the Naga movement, complicating the struggle for sovereignty as different groups pursued varying objectives and approaches. The splintering weakened the movement's unity but did not diminish its underlying goal of independence.
The failure of the Shillong Accord also marked a significant setback for the Indian government’s attempts at pacifying the Naga movement through political compromise. Instead, the government’s militarized response, aimed at suppressing the NSCN, exacerbated the situation, deepening the alienation of the Naga people and escalating the cycle of violence. This hardline approach failed to address the fundamental political demand for sovereignty, which had been at the heart of the Naga struggle, reigniting the conflict and emboldening other ethnic groups in the Northeast to also pursue autonomy. Thereby, it inadvertently broadened the insurgency into a wider struggle. Inspired by the Naga resistance, other ethnic groups across the Wesean region began to assert their own demands for autonomy and sovereignty, coalescing around the broader concept of an independent "Wesea."
Thus despite divisions, the NSCN—particularly the NSCN-IM—sustained the armed struggle well into the 1990s and beyond, keeping the demand for Naga and later “Wesean” sovereignty at the center of its agenda. Although the Indian government attempted to broker new peace deals, the sovereignty question remained unresolved.
IV. Contemporary Perspectives on the Shillong Accord Revisiting the Accord in Light of Modern Peace Talks
In contemporary times, the accord continues to cast a long shadow over modern peace talks between the Indian government and the NSCN-IM. The 2015 Framework Agreement, viewed by the Government of India as an evolved effort to integrate Nagaland while respecting Naga autonomy, drew heavily from the lessons of Shillong. However, for the NSCN-IM, the Accord remains a symbol of betrayal, a moment when Naga sovereignty was compromised, shaping their ongoing insistence on full rights and territorial integration. This historical distrust has made the current talks more delicate, with the NSCN-IM remaining wary of repeating the mistakes of 1975.
Within Naga society too, opinions on the Shillong Accord remain divided. Some moderates now see the Accord as a missed opportunity for peace, arguing that rejecting it led to further conflict. However, for many Nagas, particularly the younger generation and those aligned with more radical factions, the sense of betrayal still lingers. The Accord in many parts, especially in Naga regions outside Nagaland, is still remembered as a moment when Naga aspirations were undermined.
Naga civil society, including churches and youth groups, has played a key role in shaping views on the Accord’s legacy. The Church calls for reconciliation, while youth organizations often reflect a deep skepticism of any agreement that resembles Shillong. The Accord’s legacy has shaped ongoing peace efforts, with both sides trying to navigate the challenge of securing a just peace without repeating the perceived capitulations of 1975.
V. Concluding Remarks
The rise of a regional movement encompassing multiple ethnicities was a direct result of the state’s inability to acknowledge the region’s unique identity and political aspirations. It also highlighted the complexity of the Northeast’s insurgencies: they were not merely about independence but about identity, autonomy, and the recognition of the region’s distinctiveness within the Indian political fabric. The Shillong Accord, was thus far from resolving the conflict, underscored the limits of imposing peace without genuine political reconciliation.
Has the Naga struggle for sovereignty been irreparably fractured by this agreement, or can a more inclusive peace be forged in its aftermath? As ongoing peace talks attempt to navigate these historical wounds, the lessons of the Shillong Accord remain critical. Avoiding the mistakes of the past—acknowledging the unique identity and aspirations of the Naga people—will be essential if the future is to hold the lasting peace that the Shillong Accord ultimately failed to achieve.
Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.
Suggested Reading
● Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press, 2005.
● Hazarika, Sanjoy. Strangers of the Mist: Tales of War and Peace from India's Northeast. Penguin Books, 1994.
● Kikon, Dolly. Living with Oil and Coal: Resource Politics and Militarization in Northeast India. University of Washington Press, 2019.
● Horam, M. Naga Insurgency: The Last Thirty Years. Cosmo Publications, 1988.
● Baruah, Sanjib. India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.
● Haksar, Nandita. Nagaland File: A Question of Human Rights. Lancer International, 1984.
● Iralu, Kaka D. The Naga Saga. Published by the author, 2000.
● Mizoram University, Department of Political Science. Naga Peace Process and the Shillong Accord. International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2014.
