Share
Introduction
The century-long struggle of the Naga people for self-determination remains one of Southeast Asia’s most enduring conflicts. Historically, the Nagas lived as an independent people until colonial intervention disrupted their autonomy. Their distinct identity was asserted in the Naga Club’s 1929 memorandum to the Simon Commission, demanding to be left as they were before the colonial rule.
Since then, peace efforts and negotiations have oscillated between conflict, hope and deadlock.
The Akbar Hydari Agreement of 1947 promised semi-autonomy to the Nagas, respecting their inherent rights, with a 10-year review provision to decide whether to remain within Indian union or opt out. However, divergent interpretations led to tensions. Consequently, on August 14, 1947, the Nagas declared independence, rejecting assimilation. The 1951 plebiscite reinforced this resolve, with 99.9% voting for sovereignty.
Subsequent agreements, like the 1960 16-Point Agreement granting Nagaland statehood, failed to address core demands, excluding many Naga-inhabited areas. The 1975 Shillong Accord, the GoI’s imposition of unconditional acceptance of the Indian Constitution, deepened divisions and fuelled militant resistance.
These precedents highlight the inadequacy of imposed, one-sided solutions and the urgent need for a just, mutually acceptable resolution. This article critically examines the Conceptual and Practical implications of Shared Sovereignty framework from around the world, exploring the viability of Shared Sovereignty that was introduced in the 2015 Framework Agreement to preserve Naga identity and self-determination while fostering sustainable coexistence with India.
1. Understanding Shared Sovereignty: A Conceptual Overview
Shared sovereignty is a governance model where two or more political entities jointly exercise authority over a specific territory while retaining distinct rights, powers, and responsibilities. This model blends national sovereignty with the inherent right of a people to self-determination, creating a framework for autonomy within a unified state. It has proven successful in resolving conflicts involving contested identities, territorial disputes, and demands for greater autonomy.
By examining historical examples of shared sovereignty, we can identify strategies that have balanced autonomy and integration to address complex challenges. These examples provide valuable insights into fostering peace, preserving distinct identities, and resolving entrenched conflicts:
(i) Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement (1998)
The Good Friday Agreement, signed on April 10, 1998, ended decades of violent sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, known as The Troubles. The conflict revolved around Irish nationalists’ aspirations for unification with the Republic of Ireland and British unionists’ commitment to remaining part of the United Kingdom. The agreement introduced shared sovereignty through a nuanced balance of dual identities.
Key provisions:
• Northern Ireland Assembly: A locally elected legislature with powers over education, health, and justice.
• Cross-border institutions: Organisations like the North-South Ministerial Council foster collaboration between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
• Constitutional and identity recognition: Residents can identify as British, Irish, or both, with legal protections for these identities.
• Symbolic accommodations: The Union Jack remains the official flag, but its use in Northern Ireland is limited to respect nationalist sentiments.
• Governance: Northern Ireland operates under the UK’s constitutional framework without a separate constitution.
(ii) South Tyrol and Italy (1972)
South Tyrol, a predominantly German-speaking region in northern Italy, secured autonomy through the South Tyrol Autonomy Package, finalised in 1972 and fully implemented by 1992 under UN supervision. This arrangement resolved ethnic and territorial disputes between Italy and Austria while safeguarding South Tyrol’s distinct identity.
Key features of South Tyrol’s autonomy:
• Cultural and linguistic preservation: Control over education and language ensures the protection of the German-speaking population’s cultural identity.
• Power-sharing governance: Proportional representation guarantees equitable political participation for both German and Italian speakers.
• Economic autonomy: South Tyrol retains up to 90% of locally generated tax revenues, facilitating regional development.
• Symbolic identity: The Tyrolean Eagle serves as South Tyrol’s emblem, representing its unique heritage within the Italian state.
• Autonomy statutes: These serve as a quasi-constitutional framework, securing the region’s governance within Italy’s constitutional system.
(iii). The Basque Country and Spain
Since the Spanish Constitution of 1978, the Basque Country has enjoyed extensive autonomy, reflecting its distinct identity while upholding Spain’s territorial integrity.
Key features of Basque autonomy include:
• Exclusive taxation rights: The region collects and manages its taxes, remitting only a portion to the central government.
• Language and education policies: Euskara (Basque) is protected and promoted through a region-specific educational system.
• Distinct legal and policing systems: The Basque police (Ertzaintza) and judicial powers underscore its autonomy.
• The Ikurriña: The official flag represents Basque identity and pride.
• Statute of Autonomy of Gernika: This de facto constitution guides the region’s governance within Spain’s framework.
(iv). The Cook Islands and New Zealand
The Cook Islands operate as a self-governing territory in free association with New Zealand, managing its internal affairs while New Zealand oversees defense and foreign policy in consultation with the Cook Islands government.
Key provisions include:
• Self-governance: Full control over internal affairs like healthcare, education, and the economy.
• Political ties to New Zealand: Defense and foreign policy are handled by New Zealand, with decisions made in consultation.
• Cultural recognition: Indigenous Polynesian culture is preserved and celebrated.
• Symbolic representation: The Cook Islands flag features the Union Jack and a circle of stars, symbolising its ties with New Zealand.
• Constitutional framework: The Cook Islands Constitution safeguards autonomy while maintaining the partnership with New Zealand.
(v). Hong Kong and China
Hong Kong exemplifies shared sovereignty through the “one country, two systems” framework established after its 1997 handover to China. This arrangement preserves Hong Kong’s unique economic, legal, and cultural identity while recognising its status as part of China.
Key provisions include:
• Economic and legal autonomy: Retains a separate legal system, currency, and economic policies.
• Political freedoms: Enjoys freedoms of speech, press, and assembly absent in mainland China.
• Autonomous governance: Local selection of Chief Executive and Legislative Council, with Beijing’s oversight in key areas.
• Symbolic identity: The Hong Kong flag, featuring a Bauhinia flower, reflects its distinct character within China.
• Basic Law: Acts as a mini-constitution, safeguarding autonomy under Chinese sovereignty.
The above examples illustrate the concept of shared sovereignty through various global arrangements, demonstrating its adaptability in addressing identity, ethnic, cultural, and territorial conflicts. Each case provides unique insights into balancing autonomy with national integration while respecting distinct identities.
Sources:
• Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement Overview – GOV.UK
• OHCHR – South Tyrol, Italy: Autonomy Arrangement (1972)
• Basque Country: Autonomous community of Spain
• Wikipedia – Political status of the Cook Islands and Niue
• The Basic Law of Hong Kong
The historical precedents discussed here illustrate that shared sovereignty offers a practical and proven framework for resolving protracted conflicts. However, the Indo-Naga political conflict presents distinct challenges rooted in the unique and unparalleled history of the Naga struggle. Unlike other groups negotiating for autonomy within an existing nation-state, the Nagas have historically maintained that they were neither conquered nor willingly joined British India or the Indian Union.
2. Stalemate in the Indo-Naga Peace Process Post-2015 Framework Agreement
The Framework Agreement (FA), signed on August 3, 2015, between the Government of India and NSCN-IM, marked a historic moment in the decades-long Indo-Naga peace process. It introduced the principle of shared sovereignty, envisioning an enduring, inclusive new relationship of peaceful co-existence between the two entities. The agreement states:
“Both sides have understood each other’s respective positions… and agreed that the sovereign powers would be shared between them, with due regard to the unique history and position of the Nagas and their aspirations.”
The FA reimagines the relationship between India and Nagalim (Naga lands) as two distinct sovereign entities collaborating within a mutually agreed framework. In that case, its goal naturally encompasses:
• Equitable sharing of sovereign powers.
• Regional stability through cooperative governance.
• Respect for Naga aspirations while safeguarding India’s and Naga’s territorial integrity.
However, despite its innovative vision, the FA has been stalled by significant challenges.
Key Points of Stalemate:
1. Conflicting Views on Shared Sovereignty
• The Nagas see shared sovereignty as recognition of their distinct identity, demanding territorial integration, a separate flag, and a constitution.
• India views it within its constitutional framework, offering enhanced autonomy but rejecting demands seen as threats to national unity.
2. Territorial Integration Issues
• Nagas seek unification of Naga-inhabited areas spread across multiple states.
• Neighbouring states like Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Assam strongly oppose this, making integration politically sensitive.
3. Disunity Among Naga Groups
• The lack of unity between NSCN-IM and NNPGs weakens the Naga position.
• Parallel agreements, like the Agreed Position with NNPGs, have diluted the unity envisioned in the FA.
4. Erosion of Trust
• Delays in fulfilling commitments and perceived duplicity by the Indian government have deepened mistrust.
• Engaging with multiple factions simultaneously has undermined confidence in the peace process.
5. Unresolved Core Demands
• Key demands such as a separate Naga flag and constitution remain unaddressed.
• India’s reluctance to go beyond its constitutional limits has stalled progress.
The FA aimed to establish a transformative and new relationship between India and Nagalim. Its success depends on bold decisions, trust-building, and unity among Naga groups to overcome the current deadlock.
3. The Imperative for Resolving the Deadlock
The ongoing deadlock in the Indo-Naga peace process threatens to unravel decades of progress, risking a return to armed conflict that could destabilise the region. While the peace process has brought relative stability, prolonged delays may reignite resistance, with far-reaching humanitarian and geopolitical consequences.
This is not just a regional issue but one of global significance. As one of the world’s longest-running conflicts, the Indo-Naga negotiations represent a historic opportunity. Failure to resolve this impasse would damage India’s democratic credibility and deepen the Naga people’s aspirations for self-determination, further alienating them from integration with India. Conversely, a resolution grounded in shared sovereignty could set a global precedent for addressing ethnic and territorial disputes while preserving cultural identity and national unity.
The stakes extend beyond losing the momentum of negotiations. A collapse of talks risks driving the Nagas towards external alliances, potentially undermining India’s regional security and global standing. In contrast, a successful resolution could strengthen India’s geopolitical position by fostering cooperation and regional stability.
Practical Steps Toward Resolution:
1. Reaffirm Core Principles: Renew focus on the Framework Agreement’s vision of shared sovereignty and mutual respect, emphasising practical solutions that address both parties’ concerns.
2. Foster Unity Among Naga Groups: Strengthen cohesion among Naga factions to present a unified stance, ensuring greater leverage in negotiations.
3. Engage Stakeholders: Broaden consultations to include neighboring states, community leaders, and grassroots organisations to address concerns about territorial integration and ensure inclusivity.
4. Rebuild Trust: Initiate confidence-building measures such as recognising Naga symbols and offering enhanced administrative autonomy to restore faith in the process.
5. Explore Phased Integration: Develop practical, phased models for integration that address Naga aspirations while minimising disruptions and easing tensions.
This is a pivotal moment for the Indo-Naga peace process. India’s bold approach and decisive action grounded in empathy, pragmatism, and mutual respect is essential to ensure a peaceful and dignified future for both India and the Nagas.
4. Innovative Compromise for a Potential Breakthrough on Key Components
The failure of past accords, including the Akbar Hydari Accord (1947), the Sixteen-Point Agreement (1960), and the Shillong Accord (1975), stemmed from their inability to address the core aspirations and political rights of the Naga people. These agreements were perceived as compromises that diluted the Naga aspirations, fractured unity, and dismissed their inherent rights. Any future resolution must fully embrace these aspirations to avoid rejection and further deepening the deadlock.
(1). Reimagining Naga Integration: Legal and Moral Imperatives
The fragmentation of Naga territories during colonial and post-colonial reorganisation violated international legal principles, including the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This division, spanning Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Myanmar, disregarded the Nagas’ cultural, political, and territorial unity. International norms affirm the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination and territorial integrity, making this historical injustice a matter for redress.
Key Practical Steps for Integration:
• Internal Integration: Utilise Article 3 of the Indian Constitution to reorganise state boundaries, bringing Naga-inhabited areas in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur into a unified Nagalim.
• External Integration: Engage politically, diplomatically and legally with Myanmar to incorporate Naga territories within its borders into a cohesive Naga homeland, preserving their sovereignty.
These measures would address historical grievances, strengthen regional stability, and enhance India’s geopolitical influence. A unified Nagalim would symbolise India’s commitment to human rights and indigenous sovereignty, showcasing its ability to resolve complex ethnic conflicts.
(2). Reimagining the Naga National Flag: A Sovereign Symbol of Unity and Partnership
The Naga national flag represents sovereignty, identity, and a divine connection to the Naga people’s aspirations. Its sky-blue background, six-pointed star, and tri-colored rainbow symbolise peace, divine guidance, courage, and prosperity. The flag is a non-negotiable symbol of the Naga struggle and must feature in any resolution as a testament to sovereignty.
Pathways for Compromise:
• Preserving Core Design: Retain the flag’s fundamental elements to honor its significance.
• Incorporating Partnership Symbols: Introduce subtle additions, such as the Ashok Chakra, to signify coexistence between two sovereign entities without altering the flag’s essence.
• Dual Recognition Protocol: Enable coexistence of the Naga national flag and the Indian flag, with both displayed in shared institutions or during ceremonial events.
• Global Recognition: Allow India to endorse the Naga flag in international forums, demonstrating respect for indigenous sovereignty and fostering unity.
Incorporating the flag into a political resolution would embody justice, mutual respect, and a bridge of unity between the Naga people and India.
(3). Reimagining the Naga
Constitution: Asserting Sovereignty Through Collaborative Governance
The Yezhabo or Naga Constitution, reflects the Naga people’s governance philosophy rooted in customary laws, traditional practices, and cultural norms. Codifying and recognising the Yezhabo is essential to ensure Nagalim’s autonomy under shared sovereignty.
Codifying the NagaYezhabo/constitution:
• Customary Laws: Governance, leadership, and conflict resolution based on Naga traditions.
• Land Ownership Systems: Safeguarding communal land practices.
• Social Norms: Preserving cultural practices central to Naga identity.
• Enshrine in Indian Law: Grant formal recognition within the Indian Constitution while maintaining Nagalim’s autonomy over internal governance.
Asymmetrical Federalism Framework:
• Exclusive Control: Over education, culture, land, and customary practices.
• Collaborative Governance: Shared oversight in defense economy and foreign relations.
• Dual Jurisdictions: Ensuring coexistence between the Yezhabo and the Indian Constitution.
Recognition of the Yezhabo would uphold Naga sovereignty while fostering a cooperative framework of justice and equality, ensuring a sustainable partnership with India.
Conclusion: Forging a Collaborative Future
The Framework Agreement offers a historic opportunity to resolve the Indo-Naga conflict through shared sovereignty. Its success depends on addressing Naga aspirations and fostering genuine mutual consent.
True shared sovereignty must be built on trust, respect, and collaboration. Both sides must transcend adversarial positions, embrace equitable power-sharing, and develop practical mechanisms that harmonise their aspirations. Any imposed solution risks failure, undermining the spirit of partnership.
The Naga people have already chosen peace and coexistence over full independence from India, making significant sacrifices. India must now respond with sincerity by recognising the Naga flag, integrating Naga territories, and formally acknowledging the Yezhabo– steps essential for lasting peace.
This resolution is not just an agreement but a chance to set a global precedent for resolving conflicts with justice and innovation. Together, India and Nagalim can build a dignified partnership rooted in peace, prosperity, and mutual respect.
Kuknalim!
Markson V Luikham
marksonaga@gmail.com
Author’s Note and Disclaimer: The author is an independent writer and researcher specialising in Indo-Naga political issues. This article addresses the ongoing deadlock in the Indo-Naga peace process following the 2015 Framework Agreement, advocating for a peaceful resolution to this decades-long conflict at risk of escalation. The views expressed are personal and aim to foster dialogue and understanding, emphasising the urgent need to avert violence and its devastating human and economic toll. These perspectives are not aligned with any specific group or entity but seek to encourage constructive negotiations. It does not represent the official stance of any organisation or political body, and the author disclaims liability for any unintended consequences arising from its content. The goal is to inspire renewed dialogue, rooted in peace, mutual respect, and justice, as the foundation for resolving the Indo-Naga political impasse.