The University of Oxford on July 13, 2026 approved the repatriation of 39 Naga ancestral human remains held at the Pitt Rivers Museum (Photo Courtesy: Pitt Rivers Museum Media)
Dimapur, November 6 (MExN): The Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN), functioning within the framework of the Naga National Council (NNC), has formally challenged the University of Oxford’s July 13 decision to approve the repatriation of 39 Naga ancestral human remains held at the Pitt Rivers Museum, and demanded an immediate halt to their physical transfer.
In a Formal Representation submitted on November 4 to Oxford Vice-Chancellor Prof Irene Tracey, it raised procedural, historical, constitutional and institutional concerns over the university’s decision-making process. It also questioned the university’s understanding of who holds authority and representation in matters concerning the remains.
The NNC-FGN said its challenge was not a rejection of repatriation in principle. “This is not opposition to repatriation, but a demand for an evidence-based assessment of the long-term interests of the Naga people,” it said in a statement issued on Thursday.
It said the issue concerned the authority under which the decision was made, the legitimacy and scope of the mandates presented to the university, and whether the position of the NNC and FGN had been properly considered.
It made four principal demands: immediate suspension of all physical transfer arrangements, including packing, dispatch, transportation and handover; full disclosure of the documentary and communications record; a reasoned written response to its objections; and an independent review by persons unconnected with the original recommendation.
The review, it said, should examine the claimant’s authority, differing representations, application of Oxford’s Human Remains Policy 2006, and the historical, constitutional and political premises of the decision.
It said the NNC had publicly communicated its position on September 22, 2025, and followed it up with a letter on September 14, 2026. The FGN also wrote to the museum on October 15 and 26 this year, seeking that the process be held in abeyance.
It said research teams, academics and intermediaries may facilitate discussions but their participation does not by itself confer authority to initiate repatriation on behalf of the Naga national institution or decide the ultimate disposition of the remains.
It acknowledged that cultural bodies, NGOs, customary institutions and community organisations have their own roles, but said “collective, regional or community representation cannot automatically be equated with authority to represent the Naga national political and institutional position.”
It specifically challenged the university’s statement that “the care of the dead is protected by Article 371A of the Constitution of India, and the tribe hohos hold authority over it.”
The NNC-FGN rejected both the premise and implications of the statement, saying the Naga people’s authority over their ancestral dead does not derive from Article 371A or depend on recognition by the Government of India, the Government of Nagaland or contemporary cultural and non-governmental organisations. It said the authority is inherent, grounded in village-republic traditions and affirmed through the Naga Yezhabo (Constitution). Article 371A, it said, cannot be treated as the source of Naga national authority or as settling the wider Indo-Naga political question.
It also sought the documentary basis for a claim in the Oxford Gazette notice of March 12, 2026, which stated that the claimant was “fully authorised by the relevant Naga tribal councils.” It asked for the actual resolutions, written mandates and authorisations, including the issuing hohos or councils, the dates and scope of their mandates, and the authority granted to the facilitator.
It further asked the university to clarify when and how the museum first engaged with the claimant, who initiated the engagement, and how the claimant’s role evolved from facilitating discussions to submitting a formal claim. It also sought clarity on whether constituent bodies were fully informed of the claim’s wider historical and political implications.
It said the Naga position rests on a historical framework: the formation of the NNC on February 2, 1946; the declaration of Naga independence on August 14, 1947; the Naga National Plebiscite of 1951; and the establishment of the FGN and adoption of the Naga Yezhabo on March 22, 1956.
It maintained that the Indo-Naga political question remains unresolved, and that the history of colonial intrusion, military occupation, militarisation, human rights violations and the enforcement of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act cannot be separated from Naga historical memory and national identity.
The FGN said the issue could not be reduced to a cultural or heritage matter, as the remains were taken from Naga territory during a period of colonial intrusion and political conflict. What the museum had approached primarily as cultural repatriation was, for the NNC-FGN, “inseparable from Naga national rights, sovereignty, political authority and historical responsibility.”
On research, it asked Oxford to explain how it weighed the cultural and religious importance of repatriation against the academic and research benefits of continued preservation. It sought disclosure of provenance investigations, previous examinations, assessments of research potential and independent expert advice. It said such skeletal remains were exceptionally scarce in Naga society and could offer opportunities for future Naga scholarship and responsible scientific research.
Referring to the principles of healing, reconciliation, forgiveness, decolonisation and justice invoked by the claimant and the museum, the NNC-FGN said these required “recognition of unresolved grievances and divisions, respect for Naga national and institutional standing, and meaningful engagement with the Naga people.”
While recognising the university’s responsibility to undertake independent historical research, the FGN said this did not give it authority to determine or redefine Naga national political authority, institutional legitimacy or representation.
It said the challenge extends beyond the 39 remains at Oxford and raises the wider question of Naga ancestral remains and cultural heritage held in museums outside Naga territories. It called for a consistent, properly mandated and nationally recognised institutional approach.
The NNC-FGN urged Oxford to exercise restraint, suspend all transfer arrangements and address the representation through full disclosure, substantive engagement and independent review.
“The dignity of the dead, the responsibilities of the living and the historical interests of future generations demand a process founded upon proper authority, transparency, respect and institutional responsibility,” it said.
