NSCN's Quest for Nagalim: Peace Talks Stagnate Amid Rising Tensions in Nagaland

The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) is a Naga nationalist and separatist organization formed on January 31, 1980, by Isak Chishi Swu, Thuingaleng Muivah, and S.S. Khaplang. It emerged in opposition to the Shillong Accord of 1975, a peace agreement between the Indian government and the Naga National Council (NNC), which renounced violence and accepted integration with India. Many Naga leaders, including the NSCN founders, viewed the accord as a betrayal of their aspirations for sovereignty, leading to the NSCN’s creation to continue the armed struggle for a sovereign Naga state called Nagalim.

The NSCN’s primary goal is to establish Nagalim, a sovereign territory encompassing all Naga-inhabited areas in Northeast India- Nagaland, parts of Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and northwest Myanmar. 

The group’s ideology blends Naga nationalism, socialism for economic development, though according to recent news seems the outer state outlook towards the state has claim the agitation is for Christian State unification because of  NSCN (I-M) has emphasized Christian identity (Nagaland is predominantly Christian),  However, leaders like Muivah have clarified that the vision is for a secular state.

Inorder to understand the NSCN, how it was formed to pursue a sovereign Naga state called Nagalim, I have summarised points to understand the complex history marked by militancy, factionalism, and peace negotiations in Nagaland 

On August 14-1947, The Naga National Council (NNC), led by Angami Zapu Phizo, declares Naga independence from India, a day before India’s independence. This sets the stage for the Naga sovereignty movement, predating the NSCN.

Around 1950s–1960s, The NNC leads an armed insurgency against India, supported by external powers like China and Pakistan. By 1967, Naga rebels, including future NSCN leaders Isak Chishi Swu, Thuingaleng Muivah, and S.S. Khaplang, receive training in China, strengthening their resolve.

On November 11, 1975, The Shillong Accord is signed between the Indian government and some NNC leaders, accepting integration with India and renouncing violence. Hardline NNC members, including Swu, Muivah, and Khaplang, reject the accord as a betrayal, sowing seeds for the NSCN’s formation.

despite the name- the NSCN has no connection to Nazism or National Socialism as practiced by Nazi Germany. The term “National Socialist” reflects the group’s aim for a nationalist Naga state with socialist principles, shaped by the region’s isolation from Western political connotations. 

on January 31, 1980 The NSCN is officially formed by Isak Chishi Swu, Thuingaleng Muivah, and S.S. Khaplang in Myanmar’s Naga hills.The formation occurs in response to the NNC’s perceived capitulation. The NSCN operates from jungle bases, targeting Indian forces and collecting “taxes” from locals.The group aims to establish Nagalim, uniting Naga areas across Northeast India and Myanmar, under a socialist and Christian-inspired ideology.

From 1980–1987, The NSCN grows into a formidable insurgent group, clashing with Indian security forces and establishing a Government of the People’s Republic of Nagaland (GPRN) with ministries for governance. It gains support from Naga tribes but faces internal tensions.

In Mid-1980s,Disagreements emerge over strategy. Swu and Muivah consider political dialogue, while Khaplang insists on armed struggle. Ethnic divides—Muivah (Tangkhul Naga), Swu (Sumi Naga), Khaplang (Hemi Naga)—fuel rivalries & split.

The internal disagreements over strategy and leadership led to a major split in 1988, dividing the NSCN into two primary factions-NSCN (Isak-Muivah) or NSCN (I-M) & NSCN (Khaplang) or NSCN (K). 

Where NSCN (Isak-Muivah) /NSCN led by Isak Chishi Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah, were more open to exploring political dialogue to achieve their goals, believing that negotiations could secure greater autonomy or a favorable settlement for the Nagas. In contrast, S.S. Khaplang, who formed the NSCN (K), opposed talks, favoring continued armed struggle to achieve full sovereignty without compromise. This fundamental rift over diplomacy versus militancy created irreconcilable tensions.

however the Ethnic and tribal differences among the leaders exacerbated the divide. Muivah, a Tangkhul Naga from Manipur, and Swu, a Sumi (Sema) Naga from Nagaland, represented a broader coalition of Naga tribes but faced accusations from some quarters of prioritizing their communities. Khaplang, a Hemi Naga from Myanmar, felt marginalized and believed the leadership was dominated by Indian Nagas, particularly Tangkhuls. These ethnic dynamics fueled mistrust, with Khaplang rallying support among eastern Naga tribes and those in Myanmar.

The more tensions between the group grew due to Personal ambitions and a struggle for control within the NSCN played to an extent, contributed to the split. By 1987–88, violent clashes had begun, notably an attack by NSCN (I-M) supporters on Khaplang’s camp in Myanmar, killing over 60 NSCN (K) cadres. This violence solidified the division, with Khaplang forming the NSCN (K) and Swu and Muivah leading the NSCN (I-M).Khaplang’s alignment with Myanmar-based Naga tribes also gave him leverage with Myanmar’s military, complicating India’s counterinsurgency efforts.

the geographical and operations disputes occur where The NSCN’s operations spanned Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and northwest Myanmar, creating logistical challenges. Khaplang’s base in Myanmar gave him control over eastern Nagaland and cross-border areas, while Swu and Muivah operated primarily in western Nagaland and Manipur’s hill districts. This geographical divide reinforced separate spheres of influence, making unity harder after the split.

After the split :-

On July 25, 1997: NSCN (I-M) signs a ceasefire agreement with the Indian government, halting hostilities and starting peace talks to resolve the Naga political issue. The ceasefire is extended annually but excludes NSCN (K), which continues militancy.

2001: NSCN (K) enters its own ceasefire with India, reducing violence temporarily. However, inter-factional rivalries persist, with clashes in Dimapur and other areas.

NSCN (I-M) holds over 100 rounds of talks with India, demanding a special federal arrangement for Nagalim, including a separate flag and constitution. Progress is slow, raising Naga frustrations.

June 10, it was informed from a specific source, it’s plausible but not widely reported where it is said that A major clash between NSCN (I-M) and NSCN (K) in Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh, killing 30 cadres, highlighting ongoing turf wars despite ceasefires.

2011–2012: Smaller factions emerge, such as NSCN (Khole-Kitovi), further fragmenting the movement. NSCN (I-M) accuses India of exploiting divisions to delay a settlement.

2013: NSCN (K) strengthens bases in Myanmar, reportedly smuggling arms and drugs, while NSCN (I-M) focuses on political lobbying, meeting global human rights groups.

This period covers the Framework Agreement, renewed conflicts, and current dynamics, reflecting the NSCN’s evolving role amid stalled negotiations.

August 3, 2015, NSCN (I-M) signs the Framework Agreement with the Indian government, hailed as a step toward resolving the Naga issue. The agreement’s details remain secret, but it promises a “shared sovereignty” model, fueling hope and skepticism.Where PM Narendra Modi attends the signing, raising expectations. However, demands for a separate flag and integration of Naga areas in Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh create hurdles and resolution is still in stake.

In 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh joined Naga leaders to sign the historic Framework Agreement, aimed at resolving the Naga political issue. The Centre’s representative, R.N. Ravi, stood prominently at the far right during the ceremony.

March 27, 2015, NSCN (K) abrogates its ceasefire with India, launching attacks, including a June 2015 ambush in Manipur’s Chandel district that kills 18 Indian soldiers. India responds with cross-border strikes into Myanmar, targeting NSCN (K) camps.

June 28, 2016,Isak Chishi Swu, NSCN (I-M) co-founder, dies in Delhi. Thuingaleng Muivah assumes sole leadership, with Qhehezu Tuccu later becoming chairman in 2019.

2017–2019, NSCN (I-M) talks falter as India rejects territorial integration, citing opposition from Manipur and Assam. NSCN (K) splinters further after S.S. Khaplang’s death on June 9, 2017, with factions like NSCN (K)-Niki Sumi emerging.

October 31, 2019, Talks hit a deadlock when NSCN (I-M) accuses interlocutor R.N. Ravi of misrepresenting the Framework Agreement. The group threatens to resume “armed resistance” but maintains the ceasefire.

2020–2022,NSCN (I-M) faces public criticism for taxation, with protests in Dimapur (2020). NSCN (K) factions continue low-level militancy, abducting civilians in eastern Nagaland.

October 2022, Formal talks with NSCN (I-M) pause due to disagreements, though informal meetings continue with advisor A.K. Mishra.

February 2023, NSCN (I-M) holds rallies in Senapati, Manipur, reaffirming its Nagalim demand, straining ties with Manipur’s Meitei and Kuki communities.

Recent Developments (2024–2025)

July–August 2024, Protests in Kohima and Dimapur by Naga youth groups condemn NSCN (I-M)’s “illegal taxation,” signaling declining urban support, though rural areas remain loyal.

Protests against NSCN (I-M)’s extortion have grown, with rallies by the Dimapur Ao Youth Organisation (July 2024) and Angami Youth Organisation (August 2024) highlighting economic strain. This suggests waning support among some Nagas, who prioritize development over militancy.NSCN (I-M)’s influence remains strong in Naga hill areas, but analysts note it’s trying to regain ground in Manipur’s Naga regions amid competition with other groups.

February 2025:Formal peace talks resume after a two-year gap, with Mishra meeting NSCN (I-M) leaders in Dimapur. No breakthroughs occur, but both sides agree to continue dialogue.

March 4, 2025: Nagaland CM Neiphiu Rio urges the Centre to expedite talks, citing Naga impatience. NSCN (I-M) echoes this, demanding Modi’s direct intervention.

The AFSPA was extended in eight Nagaland districts, including Meluri, from April-1-2025, citing insurgent threats, likely including NSCN activities. This reflects ongoing security challenges despite ceasefires. 

On april 6-2025, post on X (twitter)  has claimed but unverified that NSCN (I-M) established a new camp in Myanmar near Ukhrul, Manipur, led by Absolun Tangkhul, though this is unverified. Such claims fuel concerns about cross-border insurgent bases.

 The NSCN (Isak-Muivah), the primary faction in negotiations with the Indian government, has seen no significant progress in peace talks since formal discussions resumed in February 2025. The 2015 Framework Agreement, which promised a political solution for Naga autonomy, remains stalled over demands for a separate Naga flag and constitution. In February, NSCN (I-M) urged PM Narendra Modi to honor the agreement, warning of escalating unrest if delays persist.

Nagaland CM Neiphiu Rio, on March 4, 2025, called for the Centre to show more sincerity, noting that the state government is consulting Naga political groups but lacks clarity on the talks’ status. A.K. Mishra, the Centre’s advisor, has increased visits to Nagaland, but no new breakthroughs have been reported.The Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), a rival coalition, urged the Nagaland government on March 22 to press the Centre to update the Supreme Court on peace talks, citing delays impacting delimitation exercises in the state.

The Challenges and Future Prospects peace Process lead the Framework Agreement’s secrecy (details remain undisclosed) creates mistrust among Nagas and neighboring states. NSCN (I-M)’s demand for territorial unification risks conflict with Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh, where non-Nagas resist. A proposed solution involves autonomous councils under the Sixth Schedule, but implementation is stalled.

Multiple NSCN factions dilute the movement’s coherence, with NSCN (I-M) as the main negotiator but others like NSCN (K) rejecting talks. Unification efforts have failed, and turf wars (e.g., in Dimapur) persist.

Myanmar’s instability (post-2021 coup) affects NSCN’s cross-border operations, with unverified reports of new camps. India’s fencing of the Myanmar border and scrapping of the Free Movement Regime (FMR) in 2024, opposed by Nagas.

The NSCN, born from resistance to the 1975 Shillong Accord, remains a pivotal force in Nagaland, with NSCN (I-M) leading peace talks and NSCN (K) maintaining militancy. Its vision for Nagalim drives both hope and conflict, shaped by ideology, factionalism, and regional geopolitics. As of April 13, 2025, stalled talks, border tensions, and public discontent highlight the urgency of a resolution. The NSCN’s legacy is a complex mix of nationalist aspiration and pragmatic challenges, with peace hinging on compromise from all sides.