Special Correspondent
Hebron/Ukhrul, September 16:
The Government of India is facing a sharp geopolitical challenge from the Naga political leadership over what the NSCN/GPRN describes as a widening gulf between New Delhi’s international advocacy of peace, sovereign equality and dialogue and its handling of the Naga political issue and the conflict in Manipur.
“NSCN/GPRN says India cannot preach sovereign equality and negotiated peace abroad while freezing the 2015 Framework Agreement and pursuing militarised policies in Manipur”
In a strongly worded statement issued by its Ministry of Information and Publicity (MIP), the Government of the People’s Republic of Nagalim accused New Delhi of practising “double standards”, arguing that India’s diplomatic messaging at the BRICS summit is fundamentally at odds with its policies towards the Naga people.
The statement comes against the backdrop of the New Delhi Declaration 2026, adopted at the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi. According to the MIP, the declaration invokes principles including sovereign equality, inclusive global governance, multilateral reform and the peaceful resolution of armed conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy.
The Naga organisation argues that these principles raise a fundamental question for New Delhi: if dialogue, consultation and peaceful diplomacy are essential instruments for resolving conflicts internationally, why should the same principles not govern the unresolved Naga political question?
At the heart of the confrontation is the Naga Framework Agreement signed on August 3, 2015, between the Government of India and the NSCN.
The MIP described the agreement as a landmark political document, asserting that it recognised the “unique history” and political identity of the Naga people. Yet, eleven years after its signing, the organisation alleges that the agreement remains effectively frozen, accusing New Delhi of failing to translate the political understanding into a comprehensive and honourable settlement.
For the NSCN/GPRN, the issue is no longer simply one of delayed implementation. It is a question of whether India’s international diplomatic commitments have any corresponding meaning in its domestic conflict-resolution policies.
The statement becomes considerably more explosive when it turns to Manipur.
The MIP alleges that sections of the Indian security and state establishment have enabled or supported Kuki militant organisations as proxy forces against Naga communities. It specifically alleges military, logistical and other forms of support to the KNA and alleged cooperation with KNA(B) across the Myanmar border.
These are grave allegations, and the statement does not provide independent evidence establishing them as fact. Nevertheless, their publication reflects the increasingly international character of the political narrative being advanced by the Naga leadership.
The NSCN/GPRN contends that the alleged use of armed proxies represents an attempt to transform an essentially political question into a security problem and to weaken Naga political resistance through militarisation and ethnic conflict.
Such allegations, if substantiated, would carry implications extending well beyond Manipur, touching on India’s internal security architecture, its border management along the Myanmar frontier and its credibility as an advocate of negotiated conflict resolution.
The MIP also warned that the continuation of military pressure could have consequences for the peace process itself.
The Naga organisation said the Naga people had demonstrated considerable patience since the political dialogue began in 1997. But it cautioned that sustained coercion, alleged proxy warfare and the prolonged failure to implement the 2015 Framework Agreement could progressively undermine the political environment required for negotiations.
Its message to New Delhi was unequivocal: peace cannot be built through military pressure while political dialogue remains suspended or inconclusive.
The statement challenged India to bridge the contradiction between its global diplomatic rhetoric and its domestic conflict policies.
“Peaceful dialogue requires two honest parties,” the MIP said, warning that continued pressure could make it increasingly difficult for the Naga leadership to sustain faith in the negotiating process.
The dispute therefore extends beyond the fate of a single agreement. It raises a broader geopolitical question over how a major emerging power reconciles its international commitment to sovereign equality, peaceful dispute resolution and inclusive diplomacy with unresolved political conflicts within its own borders.
The MIP ended with an uncompromising political demand aimed directly at New Delhi: “End colonialism in ALL its forms—including your own.”