Tag: Nagaland

A faction of Naga leaders appears to have hardened its stance on the ‘struggle’ for the Naga political movement while maintaining its resolve on the Naga-Kuki issue.

TFM Report

On June 16, 2026, a document emerged from the Northeastern hills that would send shockwaves through the corridors of power in both New Delhi and the Naga armed resistance strongholds. The “Eastern Flank Statement” was not merely another political communiqué—it was a declaration of well-articulated tirade against what its leaders saw as the surrender of their hard-won principles.

The statement, purportedly issued by Hs. Ramsan, A. Raman, Ikato I. Chishi Swu (Executive Member, Steering Committee), Victor Angami (Member of Collective Leadership) and Angyo Jacob Tangshang, began with a tone of weary defiance: “We have, time and again, written letters and issued clarifications to the government, the party, and the Naga public at large. We have always kept the door open for reconciliation and unity.” But the door, they made clear, had been slammed shut by forces they could no longer ignore.

 

 

The signatories traced their lineage back to the very foundations of “Naga nationalism”—to “the submission of a memorandum to the Simon Commission on 10th January, 1929 by the Naga Club, demanding that the Nagas be left alone to decide their own future.” This was not a casual reaction; it was the latest chapter in a struggle that had defined their people for nearly a century.

Alleged Betrayal of the Framework Agreement

At the heart of the conflict stood the Framework Agreement (FA) signed on August 3, 2015—a document that had once promised hope for the future of the Nagas. Under the leadership of late Chairman Isak Chishi Swu and General Secretary Th. Muivah, the agreement had represented the culmination of decades of struggle.

But hope, the Eastern Flank argued, had curdled into compromise. “Since the signing of the FA, the GoI has effectively backtracked and betrayed the Agreement,” the statement declared with bitter finality. The “betrayal became concrete” when, in August 2019, the Government of India delivered a three-month ultimatum: abandon demands for a separate flag and constitution, or face the end of all negotiations, says the statement.

The Eastern Flank saw this as a moment of reckoning. Rather than capitulate, they moved to strengthen their military position. On September 3, 2019, a new Standard of Operation created the Eastern Flank itself—a strategic move to “establish our base in the East across the present artificial Indo-Myanmar border.” But what followed would fracture the Naga movement from within.

Brothers Turned Enemies

Just one month after the Eastern Flank’s creation, the unity of the “Naga Army” shattered. The then Longvibu, Anthony Ningkhan Shimray, supposedly issued an order that superseded the new arrangements, effectively “dismantling the strengthening of the Naga Army, the backbone of the Naga political movement”, claims the statement.

The Eastern Flank described a nightmare of internal betrayal. They recounted how Anthony Ningkhan Shimray “sent the then Brig. Alen Siro to Homalin to surround and annihilate us in coordination with our adversaries.” For more than forty days, they kept Brigadier Siro with them, “trying our best to reason with him against such treacherous activity and refraining from shedding the blood of our own Naga brothers.”

He refused to listen. When a Peace Mission Team visited Brigadier Sorei at Homalin Camp, he reportedly “openly stated that he was ordered by the then Longvibu and Brig. Alen Siro to shoot at the cadres of the Eastern Flank.” The bloodshed that would follow was, in their view, a foregone conclusion.

The Eastern Flank’s greatest grievance, however, was political rather than military. They detailed how a peace proposal drafted on December 7, 2019 had qualified the Naga national identity through deliberate euphemisms—”the government of India is not in a position to recognize it,” “respecting the will of the Naga people and prevailing sentiments.”

To the Eastern Flank, these were not words of compromise but of surrender. Hs. Ramsan and others wrote an urgent letter objecting to these formulations. Their stand forced a correction: “flag and constitution would be settled through political decision, without which there can be no honorable solution.”

But words, they discovered, were hollow. “Despite this official correction, the deeds of some of our authorities suggested otherwise.” The leadership continued its “meaningless talks for more than ten years after the signing of the FA”, says the Eastern Flank statement.

Terminations, Revocations, and Reinstatements

What followed was a systematic removal of those who dared to speak principle over pragmatism. The statement details a series of terminations, revocations, and reinstatements that read like a bureaucratic tragedy:

 

Hs. Ramsan was *”wrongly terminated on 12th July 2023 through false accusations” and later “given pardon at will”—only to be terminated again on July 18, 2024, this time “under false accusations of anti-national activities, branding them as anti-nationals”, says the statement.

The Eastern Flank claimed that those who had raised their voices against compromise were “systematically purged”. Meanwhile, those who had ordered attacks on fellow Naga cadres remained in power, says the statement.

The Eastern Flank’s response was defiant: “Rejecting this injustice, the national workers and senior officers of the Naga Army in the East resolved on 10th August 2024 to remain under the leadership of Lieut. Gen. Retd. Hs. Ramsan-VC.”

A New Coalition of Resistance

By March 2026, the Eastern Flank had found unexpected allies. “Mr. Ikato I. Chishi Swu, Executive Member Steering Committee and Mr. Victor Angami, Member of Collective Leadership and their entourage have taken the right decision to join hands with us to save the nation from another surrender,” claimed the statement.

The alliance was born not of ambition but of shared outrage. Both sides had watched helplessly as the Hebron leadership allegedly “failed to take concrete steps to save the nation” and continued negotiations that had become “meaningless, endless talks with the GoI.”

The Hongbei Massacre: Brotherhood Betrayed

Then came the trigger—the event that, for the Eastern Flank, proved beyond doubt that the Hebron leadership had allegedly become an instrument of their “adversaries”.

On March 28, 2026, four Naga cadres were killed at Hongbei Village, “even while a Peace Mission was still in process.” The dead were not enemies. They were brothers, says the statement. “At the time when the GoI is using the Kukis as a proxy to wage war against us to suppress the Naga political issue, and to create a Kuki Homeland within Nagalim,” the statement explains, “our cadres were sent to work in unison with the cadres of Ghq/Hebron.”

 

The Eastern Flank’s cadres met their counterparts stationed at Hongbei. They talked. They agreed on uniting against their common enemy. They exchanged pleasantries. And then some authorities chose betrayal, asserted the Eastern Flank. “They directed the cadres to shoot one’s own brother,” the statement reads. Two cadres survived “through divine intervention,” exposing “the secret evil intentions, and plans of some of the authorities of the Hebron/Ghq.”

The massacre was not just murder—it was proof, says the Eastern Flank. “Killing the force that stands for the Nagas is a clear indication of a force working in alignment with the policy of our adversaries.”

Response of the CSOs; Naga-Kuki Issue

In response, the Tangkhul Naga Long and other civil society organisations issued a non-cooperation directive against the Wung-Tangkhul Region, demanding justice. The Eastern Flank fully supported this: “Any attempt to revoke the non-cooperation against the WTR (NSCN/GPRN) before justice is served will be an abatement to create bigger problems among us.”

Their stance on the Kuki issue remained absolute: “There can be no peace and no compromise if the Kukis insist on creating a Kuki Homeland within Nagalim.”

The Eastern Flank’s disagreement with the Hebron leadership, they insisted, was not personal but principled. They pointed to specific clauses in the proposed competencies that represented, in their view, a betrayal of the Framework Agreement:

-“Competency serial no. 4(c) states that Nagas will send Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members to the Parliament of India.”

-“The Naga Constitution/Yeahzabo is to be inserted in the Constitution of India as a separate chapter.”

– “The Election Commission of the Tatar Hoho shall function in conjunction with the Election Commission of India.”

– “The oath of office of Midan Kilonser and all Kilonsers of the NRTC shall be administered by the Governor of the State concerned.”

These provisions, the Eastern Flank argued, did not represent an honourable solution but a “surrender dressed in diplomatic clothing”. “After more than 70 years of struggle and the sacrifice of thousands of lives for our beloved Nagalim, can we now compromise our right to sovereign existence as a nation on account of the difficulties and position of the GoI?” they demanded.

A Rallying Cry

The statement concludes with a rallying cry—not just to armed cadres and politicians, but to all Nagas: “We appeal to all Nagas and national workers to rise up for the God-given rights of the Nagas. God Almighty is using the Nagas to build up according to His divine purpose. Therefore, let us abandon the spirit of doubt and timidity. Woe to those who doubt the faithfulness of God,” said the Eastern Flank. And with the traditional battle cry that has echoed through Naga history—”Kuknalim!”—the Eastern Flank made their position unmistakably clear.

As June 2026 draws to a close, the Naga movement stands at a crossroads. The Eastern Flank has drawn a line in the sand, invoking the spirit of the 1929 memorandum, the 1947 declaration of independence, and the 1951 plebiscite. They have rejected what they see as compromise and embraced what they believe to be principle.

Whether the Hebron leadership can bridge this chasm remains uncertain. The Government of India watches, waiting. The Naga-Kuki issue smolders. And Naga wait to see which path they will take.

One thing is clear: the struggle for “Nagalim” is far from over. And the Eastern Flank has made it known that, in their view, any solution that falls short of the Framework Agreement’s principles is no solution at all.

“We will stand our ground to seek an honourable and acceptable solution based on the principle of the FA that was signed under the leadership of our Chairman, late Mr. Isak Chishi Swu and General Secretary Mr. Th. Muivah.”

The post Unfolding Crisis Hits Naga Political Movement: The Eastern Flank Story first appeared on The Frontier Manipur.

Read more / Original news source: https://thefrontiermanipur.com/unfolding-crisis-hits-naga-political-movement-the-eastern-flank-story/