The Naga peace process and political dialogue cover several separate attempts to end one of India’s longest political conflicts. The process has included ceasefires, peace missions, direct negotiations, failed agreements, factional divisions and continuing talks between the Government of India and different Naga political groups.
As of August 2026, no comprehensive final settlement has been implemented. The State Government describes itself as a facilitator and continues to call for an early, honourable and acceptable solution. NPSC answers must therefore distinguish historical agreements from the present position and should not describe negotiations as completed.
Why a Peace Process Became Necessary
The political dispute developed through the Naga National Council, the failed interpretation of the Nine-Point Agreement, the declaration of 1947 and the 1951 plebiscite claimed by the NNC. By the mid-1950s, underground organisation and armed conflict had expanded.
Security operations, village regrouping, killings, arrests and displacement placed enormous pressure on civilians. Churches, elders and public leaders increasingly argued that a military approach could not resolve a political question. This created the social basis for ceasefire and dialogue.
The 1964 Ceasefire
A formal ceasefire began on 6 September 1964 between the Government of India and the underground Naga movement. It created space for political talks and reduced open hostilities for a period.
The Nagaland Peace Mission helped make the ceasefire possible. Its best-known members were Jayaprakash Narayan, Assam Chief Minister Bimala Prasad Chaliha and Reverend Michael Scott. Church leaders, particularly the Nagaland Baptist Church Council, also played a vital mediating role.
Peace Mission and Political Talks
Several rounds of talks followed. The discussions faced a basic disagreement over political status. Naga representatives raised questions of sovereignty and historical independence, while the Government of India negotiated within the framework of national unity and the Constitution.
The Peace Mission eventually broke down, and the ceasefire arrangement ended in 1972. The failure showed that a ceasefire can stop fighting temporarily, but a durable settlement requires agreement on the political substance.
The Shillong Accord of 1975
On 11 November 1975, representatives of Naga underground organisations signed the Shillong Accord with the Government of India. The signatories agreed to accept the Constitution of India without condition and to arrange the deposit of arms. A further understanding was expected to settle remaining issues.
The Accord did not produce unity. Some senior leaders rejected both its terms and the authority of the signatories. The dispute contributed to the formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland in 1980 under Isak Chishi Swu, Thuingaleng Muivah and S. S. Khaplang.
Factional Division and the 1988 Split
The NSCN itself split violently in 1988. Two major organisations emerged: NSCN (Isak-Muivah), or NSCN-IM, and NSCN (Khaplang), or NSCN-K. Further divisions later produced additional groups.
Factionalism complicated the search for a settlement. An agreement with one group might not bind others. Rival taxation, territorial influence and competing claims to representation also affected everyday life. This is why later talks increasingly emphasised inclusivity and a common Naga position.
The 1997 Ceasefire with NSCN-IM
A new ceasefire between the Government of India and NSCN-IM came into effect on 1 August 1997. It opened the longest sustained phase of dialogue in the history of the conflict. Talks were held at political level in India and abroad, and the ceasefire was periodically extended.
The ceasefire greatly reduced large-scale confrontation between the parties, although factional violence, extortion and local incidents did not disappear. Ceasefire monitoring mechanisms were created to address violations and maintain ground rules.
Issues Discussed in the Negotiations
- recognition of the distinct history and political identity of the Nagas;
- distribution of legislative and executive powers;
- protection of customary law, culture, land and resources;
- relationship among Naga-inhabited areas across existing state boundaries;
- representation, symbols and political institutions;
- rehabilitation, security arrangements and the future of armed cadres;
- an inclusive settlement acceptable to different Naga groups and affected states.
The Framework Agreement of 2015
On 3 August 2015, the Government of India and NSCN-IM signed a Framework Agreement. It recognised the need to settle the political issue through a negotiated relationship and became the foundation for detailed talks.
The full negotiated text has not been implemented as a final public settlement. Therefore, candidates should avoid inventing provisions or treating every political interpretation as an agreed clause. Its examination significance lies in the move from ceasefire management to a framework for comprehensive political negotiation.
The Agreed Position of 2017
The Government of India also negotiated with the Working Committee of Naga National Political Groups. On 17 November 2017, the two sides signed an Agreed Position. This widened formal dialogue beyond NSCN-IM.
The existence of two negotiating tracks created both opportunity and difficulty. A wider number of groups joined talks, but their expectations and preferred institutional arrangements were not always identical. Calls for one inclusive agreement became stronger.
Why a Final Settlement Remains Difficult
The most difficult questions concern political symbols, the form of the final relationship, integration or coordination of Naga-inhabited areas, and agreement among multiple groups. Neighbouring states oppose any alteration of their territorial boundaries, while Naga organisations continue to emphasise common historical and cultural ties.
Another challenge is representation. A durable agreement must command broad support across tribes, political organisations, elected institutions, civil society, churches, women, youth and Naga communities outside Nagaland. It must also provide a clear and lawful process for implementation.
Role of the Nagaland Government and Civil Society
The Nagaland Government states that it is a facilitator rather than a principal negotiating party. The Political Affairs Committee, legislators and parliamentary representatives hold consultations and urge the negotiating parties to reach an inclusive solution.
Tribal hohos, church bodies, student organisations and civil-society groups have repeatedly supported peace, unity and restraint. They also call for an end to factionalism and coercive collections. Their role is important because formal agreements require acceptance at the social level.
Position in 2026
In 2025, Nagaland’s Political Affairs Committee asked that talks be resumed at the political level. In 2026, the State Government welcomed the Centre’s decision to place renewed political engagement under a committee chaired at ministerial level. The stated objective remains an early, honourable, inclusive and acceptable solution.
This means the peace process is active but unfinished. The long ceasefire has created a comparatively peaceful environment, yet the absence of a final implemented agreement leaves political uncertainty.
How to Write an NPSC Mains Answer
Use a chronological structure: 1964 ceasefire, Shillong Accord, formation and split of NSCN, 1997 ceasefire, 2015 Framework Agreement, 2017 Agreed Position and the current effort for inclusive political dialogue. Then explain unresolved issues and the role of civil society. End with the need for a lawful, inclusive and implementable settlement.
Revise the earlier background through the Naga National Council, Sixteen-Point Agreement and formation of Nagaland State. The complete subject list is on the Nagaland PSC Notes page. Students may also use the Nagaland PSC Foundation Course 2026–2027.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the current long ceasefire begin?
The ceasefire between the Government of India and NSCN-IM came into effect on 1 August 1997.
What is the difference between the 2015 and 2017 documents?
The 2015 Framework Agreement was signed with NSCN-IM. The 2017 Agreed Position was signed with the Working Committee of Naga National Political Groups.
Has the Naga peace process ended?
No. As of August 2026, dialogue continues and no comprehensive final settlement has been implemented.